Wesley Corpus

II. What is the salvation which is through faith. III. How we may answer some objections. I. What faith it is through which we are saved. 1. And, first, it is not barely the faith of a heathen. Now, God requireth of a heathen to believe, "that God is; that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him;" and that he is to be sought by glorifying him as God, by giving him thanks for all things, and by a careful practice of moral virtue, of justice, mercy, and truth, toward their fellow creatures. A Greek or Roman, therefore, yea, a Scythian or Indian, was without excuse if he did not believe thus much: the being and attributes of God, a future state of reward and punishment, and the obligatory nature of moral virtue. For this is barely the faith of a heathen. 2. Nor, secondly, is it the faith of a devil, though this goes much farther than that of a heathen. For the devil believes, not only that there is a wise and powerful God, gracious to reward, and just to punish; but also, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, the Saviour of the world. So we find him declaring, in express terms, "I know Thee who Thou art; the Holy One of God" (Luke 4:34). Nor can we doubt but that unhappy spirit believes all those words which came out of the mouth of the Holy One, yea, and whatsoever else was written by those holy men of old, of two of whom he was compelled to give that glorious testimony, "These men are the servants of the most high God, who show unto you the way of salvation." Thus much, then, the great enemy of God and man believes, and trembles in believing, --that God was made manifest in the flesh; that he will "tread all enemies under his feet;" and that "all Scripture was given by inspiration of God." Thus far goeth the faith of a devil.

[Good men avoid sin from the love of virtue; Wicked men avoid sin from a fear of punishment.] So that, if a man only abstains from doing evil in order to avoid punishment, Non pasces in cruce corvos, [Thou shalt not be hanged.], saith the Pagan; there, "thou hast thy reward." But even he will not allow such a harmless man as this to be so much as a good heathen. If, then, any man, from the same motive, viz., to avoid punishment, to avoid the loss of his friends, or his gain, or his reputation, should not only abstain from doing evil, but also do ever so much good; yea, and use all the means of grace; yet we could not with any propriety say, this man is even almost a Christian. If he has no better principle in his heart, he is only a hypocrite altogether. 10. Sincerity, therefore, is necessarily implied in the being almost a Christian; a real design to serve God, a hearty desire to do his will. It is necessarily implied, that a man have a sincere view of pleasing God in all things; in all his conversation; in all his actions; in all he does or leaves undone. This design, if any man be almost a Christian, runs through the whole tenor of his life. This is the moving principle, both in his doing good, his abstaining from evil, and his using the ordinances of God. 11. But here it will probably be inquired, "Is it possible that any man living should go so far as this, and, nevertheless, be only almost a Christian What more than this, can be implied in the being a Christian altogether I answer, First, that it is possible to go thus far, and yet be but almost a Christian, I learn, not only from the oracles of God, but also from the sure testimony of experience. 12. Brethren, great is "my boldness towards you in this behalf." And "forgive me this wrong," if I declare my own folly upon the house-top, for yours and the gospel's sake. --Suffer me, then, to speak freely of myself, even as of another man. I am content to be abased, so ye may be exalted, and to be yet more vile for the glory of my Lord.

6. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you, and suffer ye the word of exhortation, even from one the least esteemed in the Church. Your conscience beareth you witness in the Holy Ghost, that these things are so, if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. "This is eternal life, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent." This experimental knowledge, and this alone, is true Christianity. he is a Christian who hath received the Spirit of Christ. he is not a Christian who hath not received him. Neither is it possible to have received him, and not know it. "For, at that day" (when he cometh, saith our Lord), "ye shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." This is that "Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:17). 7. The world cannot receive him, but utterly reject the Promise of the Father, contradicting and blaspheming. But every spirit which confesseth not this is not of God. Yea, "this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come into the world; and even now it is in the world." he is Antichrist whosoever denies the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, or that the indwelling Spirit of God is the common privilege of all believers, the blessing of the gospel, the unspeakable gift, the universal promise, the criterion of a real Christian. 8. It nothing helps them to say, "We do not deny the assistance of God's Spirit; but only this inspiration, this receiving the Holy Ghost: and being sensible of it. It is only this feeling of the Spirit, this being moved by the Spirit, or filled with it, which we deny to have any place in sound religion." But, in only denying this, you deny the whole Scriptures; the whole truth, and promise, and testimony of God.

2. To the same effect are the words of the great Apostle, which it is evident have never yet been fulfilled. "Hath God cast away his people? God forbid." "But through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles." "And if the diminishing of them be the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fullness?" "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in: And so all Israel shall be saved." (Rom. 11:1, 11, 25, 26.) 3. Suppose now the fullness of time to be come, and the prophecies to be accomplished. What a prospect is this! All is peace, "quietness, and assurance for ever." Here is no din of arms, no "confused noise," no "garments rolled in blood." "Destructions are come to a perpetual end." Wars are ceased from the earth. Neither are there any intestine jars remaining; no brother rising up against brother; no country or city divided against itself, and tearing out its own bowels. Civil discord is at an end for evermore, and none is left either to destroy or hurt his neighbour. Here is no oppression to "make" even "the wise man mad;" no extortion to "grind the face of the poor;" no robbery or wrong; no rapine or injustice; for all are "content with such things as they possess." Thus "righteousness and peace have kissed each other;" (Ps. 85:10;) they have "taken root and filled the land;" "righteousness flourishing out of the earth;" and "peace looking down from heaven."

2. Neither is that far-fetched conceit, that justification is the clearing us from accusation, particularly that of Satan, easily provable from any clear text of holy writ. In the whole scriptural account of this matter, as above laid down, neither that accuser nor his accusation appears to be at all taken in. It can not indeed be denied, that he is the "accuser" of men, emphatically so called. But it does in nowise appear, that the great Apostle hath any reference to this, more or less, in all he hath written touching justification, either to the Romans or the Galatians. 3. It is also far easier to take for granted, than to prove from any clear scripture testimony, that justification is the clearing us from the accusation brought against us by the law: At least if this forced, unnatural way of speaking mean either more or less than this, that, whereas we have transgressed the law of God, and thereby deserved the damnation of hell, God does not inflict on those who are justified the punishment which they had deserved. 4. Least of all does justification imply, that God is deceived in those whom he justifies; that he thinks them to be what, in fact, they are not; that he accounts them to be otherwise than they are. It does by no means imply, that God judges concerning us contrary to the real nature of things; that he esteems us better than we really are, or believes us righteous when we are unrighteous. Surely no. The judgment of the all-wise God is always according to truth. Neither can it ever consist with his unerring wisdom, to think that I am innocent, to judge that I am righteous or holy, because another is so. He can no more, in this manner, confound me with Christ, than with David or Abraham. Let any man to whom God hath given understanding, weigh this without prejudice; and he cannot but perceive, that such a notion of justification is neither reconcilable to reason nor Scripture.

8. Now, this covenant saith not to sinful man, "Perform unsinning obedience, and live." If this were the term, he would have no more benefit by all which Christ hath done and suffered for him, than if he was required, in order to life, to "ascend into heaven, and bring down Christ from above;" or to "descend into the deep," into the invisible world, and "bring up Christ from the dead." It doth not require any impossibility to be done: (Although to mere man, what it requires would be impossible; but not to man assisted by the Spirit of God:) This were only to mock human weakness. Indeed, strictly speaking, the covenant of grace doth not require us to do anything at all, as absolutely and indispensably necessary in order to our justification; but only, to believe in Him who, for the sake of his Son, and the propitiation which he hath made, "justifieth the ungodly that worketh not," and imputes his faith to him for righteousness. Even so Abraham "believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Gen. 15:6.) "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, -- that he might be the father of all them that believe, -- that righteousness might be imputed unto them also." (Rom. 4:11.) "Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it," i.e., faith, "was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed," to whom faith shall be imputed for righteousness, shall stand in the stead of perfect obedience, in order to our acceptance with God, "if we believe on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered" to death "for our offences, and was raised again for our justification:" (Rom. 4:23-25:) For the assurance of the remission of our sins, and of a second life to come, to them that believe.

12. Again: The covenant of works, in order to man's continuance in the favour of God, in his knowledge and love, in holiness and happiness, required of perfect man a perfect and uninterrupted obedience to every point of the law of God. Whereas, the covenant of grace, in order to man's recovery of the favour and the life of God, requires only faith; living faith in Him who, through God, justifies him that obeyed not. 13. Yet, again: The covenant of works required of Adam and all his children, to pay the price themselves, in consideration of which they were to receive all the future blessings of God. But, in the covenant of grace, seeing we have nothing to pay, God "frankly forgives us all:" Provided only, that we believe in Him who hath paid the price for us; who hath given himself a "Propitiation for our sins, for the sins of the whole world." 14. Thus the first covenant required what is now afar off from all the children of men; namely, unsinning obedience, which is far from those who are "conceived and born in sin." Whereas, the second requires what is nigh at hand; as though it should say, "Thou art sin! God is love! Thou by sin art fallen short of the glory of God; yet there is mercy with him. Bring then all thy sins to the pardoning God, and they shall vanish away as a cloud. If thou wert not ungodly, there would be no room for him to justify thee as ungodly. But now draw near, in fill assurance of faith. He speaketh, and it is done. Fear not, only believe; for even the just God justifieth all that believe in Jesus." II. 1. These things considered, it would be easy to show, as I proposed to do in the Second place, the folly of trusting in the "righteousness which is of the law," and the wisdom of submitting to "the righteousness which is of faith."

10. But true religion, or a heart right toward God and man, implies happiness as well as holiness. For it is not only "righteousness," but also "peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." What peace "The peace of God," which God only can give, and the world cannot take away; the peace which "passeth all under-standing," all barely rational conception; being a supernatural sensation, a divine taste, of "the powers of the world to come;" such as the natural man knoweth not, how wise soever in the things of this world; nor, indeed, can he know it, in his present state, "because it is spiritually discerned." It is a peace that banishes all doubt, all painful uncertainty; the Spirit of God bearing witness with the spirit of a Christian, that he is "a child of God." And it banishes fear, all such fear as hath torment; the fear of the wrath of God; the fear of hell; the fear of the devil; and, in particular, the fear of death: he that hath the peace of God, desiring, if it were the will of God, "to depart, and to be with Christ." 11. With this peace of God, wherever it is fixed in the soul, there is also "joy in the Holy Ghost;" joy wrought in the heart by the Holy Ghost, by the ever-blessed Spirit of God. He it is that worketh in us that calm, humble rejoicing in God, through Christ Jesus, "by whom we have now received the atonement," katallaghn, the reconciliation with God; and that enables us boldly to confirm the truth of the royal Psalmist's declaration, "Blessed is the man" (or rather, happy) "whose unrighteousness is forgiven, and whose sin is covered." He it is that inspires the Christian soul with that even, solid joy, which arises from the testimony of the Spirit that he is a child of God; and that gives him to "rejoice with joy unspeakable, in hope of the glory of God;" hope both of the glorious image of God, which is in part and shall be fully "revealed in him;" and of that crown of glory which fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for him.

The First Fruits of the Spirit "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom. 8:1 1. By "them which are in Christ Jesus," St. Paul evidently means, those who truly believe in him; those who, "being justified by faith, have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." They who thus believe do no longer "walk after the flesh," no longer follow the motions of corrupt nature, but "after the Spirit"; both their thoughts, words, and works are under the direction of the blessed Spirit of God. 2. "There is therefore now no condemnation to" these. There is no condemnation to them from God; for he hath justified them "freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus." he hath forgiven all their iniquities, and blotted out all their sins. And there is no condemnation to them from within; for they "have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that they might know the things which are freely given to them of God" (1 Cor. 2:12); which Spirit "beareth witness with their spirits, that they are the children of God." And to this is added the testimony of their conscience, "that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, they have had their conversation in the world" (2 Cor. 1:12). 3. But because this scripture has been so frequently misunderstood, and that in so dangerous a manner; because such multitudes of "unlearned and unstable men" (oi amaqeis kai asthriktoi, men untaught of God, and consequently unestablished in the truth which is after godliness) have wrested it to their own destruction; I propose to show, as clearly as I can, first who those are "which are in Christ Jesus," and "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit:" and, secondly, how "there is no condemnation to" these. I shall conclude with some practical inferences.

3. If it be said, "But sometimes a believer in Christ may lose his sight of the mercy of God; sometimes such darkness may fall upon him that he no longer sees him that is invisible, no longer feels that witness in himself of his part in the atoning blood; and then he is inwardly condemned, he hath again "the sentence of death in himself" ': I answer, supposing it so to be, supposing him not to see the mercy of God, then he is not a believer: For faith implies light, the light of God shining upon the soul. So far, therefore, as any one loses this light, he, for the time, loses his faith. And, no doubt, a true believer in Christ may lose the light of faith; and so far as this is lost, he may, for a time, fall again into condemnation. But this is not the case of them who now "are in Christ Jesus," who now believe in his name. For so long as they believe, and walk after the Spirit, neither God condemns them, nor their own heart.

5. They are not condemned, thirdly, for inward sin, even though it does now remain. That the corruption of nature does still remain, even in those who are the children of God by faith; that they have in them the seeds of pride and vanity, of anger, lust, and evil desire, yea, sin of every kind; is too plain to be denied, being matter of daily experience. And on this account it is, that St. Paul, speaking to those whom he had just before witnessed to be "in Christ Jesus," (1 Cor. 1:2, 9), to have been "called of God into the fellowship "(or participation) "of his Son Jesus Christ "; yet declares, "Brethren, I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ" (1 Cor. 3:1): "babes in Christ"; so we see they were "in Christ"; they were believers in a low degree. And yet how much of sin remained in them! of that "carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God!" 6. And yet, for all this, they are not condemned. Although they feel the flesh, the evil nature, in them; although they are more sensible, day by day, that their "heart is deceitful and desperately wicked"; yet, so long as they do not yield thereto; so long as they give no place to the devil; so long as they maintain a continual war with all sin, with pride, anger, desire, so that the flesh hath not dominion over them, but they still "walk after the Spirit"; "there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." God is well pleased with their sincere, though imperfect. obedience; and they "have confidence toward God," knowing they are his, "by the Spirit which he hath given" them. (1 John 3:24).

The Witness of the Spirit: Discourse One "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Rom. 8:16 1. How many vain men, not understanding what they spake, neither whereof they affirmed, have wrested this Scripture to the great loss if not the destruction of their souls! How many have mistaken the voice of their own imagination for this witness of the Spirit of God, and thence idly presumed they were the children of God while they were doing the works of the devil! These are truly and properly enthusiasts; and, indeed, in the worst sense of the word. But with what difficulty are they convinced thereof, especially if they have drank deep into that spirit of error! All endeavours to bring them to the knowledge of themselves they will then account fighting against God; and that vehemence and impetuosity of spirit which they call "contending earnestly for the faith," sets them so far above all the usual methods of conviction that we may well say, "With men it is impossible." 2. Who can then be surprised if many reasonable men, seeing the dreadful effects of this delusion, and labouring to keep at the utmost distance from it, should sometimes lean toward another extreme -- if they are not forward to believe any who speak of having this witness concerning which others have so grievously erred -- if they are almost ready to set all down for enthusiasts, who use the expressions which have been so terribly abused -- yea, if they should question whether the witness or testimony here spoken of, be the privilege of ordinary Christians, and not, rather, one of those extraordinary gifts which they suppose belonged only to the apostolic age 3 . But is there any necessity laid upon us of running either into one extreme or the other May we not steer a middle course -- keep a sufficient distance from that spirit of error and enthusiasm, without denying the gift of God, and giving up the great privilege of his children Surely we may. In order thereto, let us consider, in the presence and fear of God, First. What is this witness or testimony of our spirit; what is the testimony of God's Spirit; and, how does he "bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God"

Secondly. How is this joint testimony of God's Spirit and our own, clearly and solidly distinguished from the presumption of a natural mind, and from the delusion of the devil I. 1. Let us first consider, what is the witness or testimony of our spirit. But here I cannot but desire all those who are for swallowing up the testimony of the Spirit of God, in the rational testimony of our own spirit, to observe, that in this text the Apostle is so far from speaking of the testimony of our own spirit only, that it may be questioned whether he speaks of it at all, -- whether he does not speak only of the testimony of God's Spirit. It does not appear but the original text may fairly be understood thus. The Apostle had just said, in the preceding verse, "Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father;" and immediately subjoins, Auto to pneuma (some copies read to auto pneuma) summarturei tv pneumati hmvn, oti esmen tekna qeou, which may be translated, "The same Spirit beareth witness to our spirit that we are the children of God" (the preposition sun only denoting that he witnesses this at the same time that he enables us to cry Abba, Father.) But I contend not; seeing so many other texts, with the experience of all real Christians, sufficiently evince, that there is in every believer, both the testimony of God's Spirit, and the testimony of his own, that he is a child of God.

2. With regard to the latter, the foundation thereof is laid in those numerous texts of Scripture which describe the marks of the children of God; and that so plain, that he which runneth may read them. These are also collected together, and placed in the strongest light, by many both ancient and modern writers. If any need farther light, he may receive it by attending on the ministry of God's Word; by meditating thereon before God in secret; and by conversing with those who have the knowledge of his ways. And by the reason or understanding that God has given him, which religion was designed not to extinguish, but to perfect; -- according to that of the Apostle, "Brethren, be not children in understanding; in malice" or wickedness "be ye children; but in understanding be ye men;" (1 Cor. 14:20;) -- every man applying those scriptural marks to himself, may know whether he is a child of God. Thus, if he know, First, "as many as are led by the Spirit of God," into all holy tempers and actions, "they are the sons of God;" (for which he has the infallible assurance of holy writ;) Secondly, I am thus "led by the Spirit of God;" he will easily conclude, -- "Therefore I am a son of God." 3. Agreeable to this are all those plain declarations of St. John, in his First Epistle: "Hereby we know that we do know him, if we keep his commandments." (1 John 2:3.) "Whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected; Hereby know we that we are in him;" that we are indeed the children of God. (1 John 2:5.) "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him." (1 John 2:29.) "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." (1 John 3:14) "Hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him;" namely, because we "love one another not in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth." "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, because he hath given us of his" loving "Spirit." (1 John 4:13.) And, "hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the" obedient "spirit which he hath given us." (1 John 3:24.)

4. It is highly probable there never were any children of God, from the beginning of the world unto this day, who were farther advanced in the grace of God and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, than the Apostle John, at the time when he wrote these words, and the fathers in Christ to whom he wrote. Notwithstanding which, it is evident both the Apostle himself, and all those pillars in God's temple, were very far from despising these marks of their being the children of God; and that they applied them to their own souls for the confirmation of their faith. Yet all this is no other than rational evidence, the witness of our spirit, our reason or understanding. It all resolves into this: Those who have these marks are the children of God: But we have these marks. Therefore we are children of God.

6. Now this is properly the testimony of our own spirit; even the testimony of our conscience, that God hath given us to be holy of heart, and holy in outward conversation. It is a consciousness of our having received, in and by the Spirit of adoption, the tempers mentioned in the Word of God as belonging to his adopted children; even a loving heart toward God and toward all mankind; hanging with childlike confidence on God our Father, desiring nothing but him, casting all our care upon him, and embracing every child of man with earnest, tender affection: -- A consciousness that we are inwardly conformed, by the Spirit of God, to the image of his Son, and that we walk before him in justice, mercy, and truth, doing the things which are pleasing in his sight. 7. But what is that testimony of God's Spirit, which is superadded to, and conjoined with, this How does he "bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God" It is hard to find words in the language of men to explain "the deep things of God." Indeed, there are none that will adequately express what the children of God experience. But perhaps one might say, (desiring any who are taught of God to correct, to soften or strengthen the expression,) The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; and that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God.

8. That this testimony of the Spirit of God must needs, in the very nature of things, be antecedent to the testimony of our own spirit, may appear from this single consideration: We must be holy of heart, and holy in life before we can be conscious that we are so; before we can have the testimony of our spirit, that we are inwardly and outwardly holy. But we must love God, before we can be holy at all; this being the root of all holiness. Now we cannot love God, till we know he loves us. "We love him, because he first loved us." And we cannot know his pardoning love to us, till his Spirit witnesses it to our spirit. Since, therefore, this testimony of his Spirit must precede the love of God and all holiness, of consequence it must precede our inward consciousness thereof, or the testimony of our spirit concerning them. 9. Then, and not till then, -- when the Spirit of God beareth that witness to our spirit, "God hath loved thee, and given his own Son to be the propitiation for thy sins; the Son of God hath loved thee, and hath washed thee from thy sins in his blood," -- "we love God, because he first loved us;" and, for his sake, we love our brother also. And of this we cannot but be conscious to ourselves: We "know the things that are freely given to us of God." We know that we love God and keep his commandments; and "hereby also we know that we are of God." This is that testimony of our own spirit, which, so long as we continue to love God and keep his commandments, continues joined with the testimony of God's Spirit, "that we are the children of God."

10. Not that I would by any means be understood, by anything which has been spoken concerning it, to exclude the operation of the Spirit of God, even from the testimony of our own spirit. In no wise. It is he that not only worketh in us every manner of thing that is good, but also shines upon his own work, and clearly shows what he has wrought. Accordingly, this is spoken of by St. Paul, as one great end of our receiving the Spirit, "that we may know the things which are freely given to us of God:" That he may strengthen the testimony of our conscience, touching our 'simplicity and godly sincerity;" and give us to discern, in a fuller and stronger light, that we now do the things which please him. 11. Should it still be inquired, "How does the Spirit of God bear witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God,' so as to exclude all doubt, and evince the reality of our sonship" -- the answer is clear from what has been observed above. And, First, as to the witness of our spirit: The soul as intimately and evidently perceives when it loves, delights, and rejoices in God, as when it loves and delights in anything on earth. And it can no more doubt, whether it loves, delights, and rejoices or no, than whether it exists or no. If, therefore this be just reasoning, He that now loves God, that delights and rejoices in him with an humble joy, and holy delight, and an obedient love, is a child of God; But I thus love, delight, and rejoice in God; Therefore, I am a child of God: -- Then a Christian can in no wise doubt of his being a child of God. Of the former proposition he has as full an assurance as he has that the Scriptures are of God; and of his thus loving God, he has an inward proof, which is nothing short of self-evidence. Thus, the testimony of our own spirit is with the most intimate conviction manifested to our hearts, in such a manner, as beyond all reasonable doubt to evince the reality of our sonship.

12. The manner how the divine testimony is manifested to the heart, I do not take upon me to explain. Such knowledge is too wonderful and excellent for me: I cannot attain unto it. The wind bloweth, and I hear the sound thereof; but I cannot tell how it cometh, or whither it goeth. As no one knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man that is in him; so the manner of the things of God knoweth no one, save the Spirit of God. But the fact we know; namely, that the Spirit of God does give a believer such a testimony of his adoption that while it is present to the soul, he can no more doubt the reality of his sonship, than he can doubt of the shining of the sun, while he stands full blaze of his beams. II. 1. How this joint testimony of God's Spirit and our spirit may be clearly and solidly distinguished from the presumption of a natural mind, and from the delusion of the devil, is the next thing to be considered. And it highly imports all who desire the salvation of God, to consider it with the deepest attention, as they would not deceive their own souls. An error in this is generally observed to have the most fatal consequences; the rather, because he that errs, seldom discovers his mistake till it is too late to remedy it. 2. And, First, how is this testimony to be distinguished from the presumption of a natural mind It is certain, one who was never convinced of sin, is always ready to flatter himself, and to think of himself, especially in spiritual things, more highly than he ought to think. And hence, it is in no wise strange, if one who is vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, when he hears of this privilege of true Christians, among whom he undoubtedly ranks himself, should soon work himself up into a persuasion that he is already possessed thereof. Such instances now abound in the world, and have abounded in all ages. How then may the real testimony of the Spirit with our spirit, be distinguished from this damning presumption

3. I answer, the Holy Scriptures abound with marks, whereby the one may be distinguished from the other. They describe, in the plainest manner, the circumstances which go before, which accompany, and which follow, the true, genuine testimony of the Spirit of God with the spirit of a believer. Whoever carefully weighs and attends to these will not need to put darkness for light. He will perceive so wide a difference, with respect to all these, between the real and the pretended witness of the Spirit, that there will be no danger, I might say, no possibility, of confounding the one with the other. 4. By these, one who vainly presumes on the gift of God might surely know, if he really desired it, that he hath been hitherto "given up to a strong delusion," and suffered to believe a lie. For the Scriptures lay down those clear, obvious marks, as preceding, accompanying, and following that gift, which a little reflection would convince him, beyond all doubt, were never found in his soul. For instance: The Scripture describes repentance, or conviction of sin, as constantly going before this witness of pardon. So, "Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3:2.) "Repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:15.) "Repent, and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38.) "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." (Acts 3:19.) In conformity whereto, our Church also continually places repentance before pardon, or the witness of it. "He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy gospel." "Almighty God -- hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them, who, with hearty repentance and true faith, turn unto him." But he is a stranger even to this repentance: He hath never known a broken and a contrite heart: "The remembrance of his sins" was never "grievous unto him," nor "the burden of them intolerable." In repeating those words, he never meant what he said; he merely paid a compliment to God. And were it only from the want of this previous work of God, he hath too great reason to believe that he hath grasped a mere shadow, and never yet known the real privilege of the sons of God.

6. But waving the consideration of whatever he has or has not experienced in time past; by the present marks may we easily distinguish a child of God from a presumptuous self-deceiver. The Scriptures describe that joy in the Lord which accompanies the witness of his Spirit, as a humble joy; a joy that abases to the dust, that makes a pardoned sinner cry out, "I am vile! What am I, or my father's house Now mine eye seeth thee, I abhor myself in dust and ashes!" And wherever lowliness is, there is meekness, patience, gentleness, long-suffering. There is a soft, yielding spirit; a mildness and sweetness, a tenderness of soul, which words cannot express. But do these fruits attend that supposed testimony of the Spirit in a presumptuous man Just the reverse. The more confident he is of the favour of God, the more is he lifted up; the more does he exalt himself, the more haughty and assuming is his whole behaviour. The stronger witness he imagines himself to have, the more overbearing is he to all around him; the more incapable of receiving any reproof; the more impatient of contradiction. Instead of being more meek, and gentle, and teachable, more "swift to hear, and slow to speak," he is more slow to hear, and swift to speak; more unready to learn of anyone; more fiery and vehement in his temper, and eager in his conversation. Yea, perhaps, there will sometimes appear a kind of fierceness in his air, his manner of speaking, his whole deportment, as if he were just going to take the matter out of God's hands, and himself to "devour the adversaries."

7. Once more: the Scriptures teach, "This is the love of God," the sure mark thereof, "that we keep his commandments." (1 John 5:3.) And our Lord himself saith, "He that keepeth my commandments, he it is that loveth me." (John 14:21.) Love rejoices to obey; to do, in every point whatever is acceptable to the beloved. A true lover of God hastens to do his will on earth as it is done in heaven. But is this the character of the presumptuous pretender to the love of God Nay, but his love gives him a liberty to disobey, to break, not keep, the commandments of God. Perhaps, when he was in fear of the wrath of God, he did labour to do his will. But now, looking on himself as "not under the law," he thinks he is no longer obliged to observe it. He is therefore less zealous of good works: less careful to abstain from evil; less watchful over his own heart; less jealous over his tongue. He is less earnest to deny himself, and to take up his cross daily. In a word, the whole form of his life is changed since he has fancied himself to be at liberty. He is no longer "exercising himself unto godliness;" "wrestling not only with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers," enduring hardships, "agonizing to enter in at the strait gate." No; he has found an easier way to heaven; a broad, smooth flowery path, in which he can say to his soul, "Soul, take thy ease; eat, drink, and be merry." It follows, with undeniable evidence, that he has not the true testimony of his own spirit. He cannot be conscious of having those marks which he hath not; that lowliness, meekness, and obedience: Nor yet can the Spirit of the God of truth bear witness to a lie; or testify that he is a child of God when he is manifestly a child of the devil.

12. "But how shall I know that my spiritual senses are rightly disposed" This also is a question of vast importance; for if a man mistake in this, he may run on in endless error and delusion. "And how am I assured that this is not my case; and that I do not mistake the voice of the Spirit" Even by the testimony of your own spirit; by "the answer of a good conscience toward God." [Acts 23:1] By the fruits which he hath wrought in your spirit, you shall know the testimony of the Spirit of God. Hereby you shall know, that you are in no delusion, that you have not deceived your own soul. The immediate fruits of the Spirit ruling in the heart, are "love, joy, peace, bowels of mercies, humbleness of mind, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering." [Gal. 5:22, 23] And the outward fruits are, the doing good to all men; the doing no evil to any; and the walking in the light, [1 John 1:7] -- a zealous, uniform obedience to all the commandments of God. 13. By the same fruits shall you distinguish this voice of God, from any delusion of the devil. That proud spirit cannot humble thee before God. He neither can nor would soften thy heart, and melt it first into earnest mourning after God, and then into filial love. It is not the adversary of God and man that enables thee to love thy neighbour; or to put on meekness, gentleness, patience, temperance, and the whole armour of God. [see Col. 3:12-14; Eph. 6:11] He is not divided against himself, or a destroyer of sin, his own work. No; it is none but the Son of God who cometh to "destroy the works of the devil." [1 John 3:8] As surely therefore as holiness is of God, and as sin is the work of the devil, so surely the witness thou hast in thyself is not of Satan, but of God.

The Witness of the Spirit: Discourse Two "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Rom. 8:16 I. 1. None who believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, can doubt the importance of such a truth as this; -- a truth revealed therein, not once only, not obscurely, not incidentally; but frequently, and that in express terms; but solemnly and of set purpose, as denoting one of the peculiar privileges of the children of God. 2. And it is the more necessary to explain and defend this truth, because there is a danger on the right hand and on the left. If we deny it, there is a danger lest our religion degenerate into mere formality; lest, "having a form of godliness," we neglect, if not "deny, the power of it." If we allow it, but do not understand what we allow, we are liable to run into all the wildness of enthusiasm. It is therefore needful, in the highest degree, to guard those who fear God from both those dangers by a scriptural and rational illustration and confirmation of this momentous truth. 3. It may seem, something of this kind is the more needful, because so little has been wrote on the subject with any clearness; unless some discourses on the wrong side of the question, which explain it quite away. And it cannot be doubted, but these were occasioned, at least in a great measure, by the crude, unscriptural, irrational explication of others, who "knew not what they spake, nor whereof they affirmed." 4. It more nearly concerns the Methodists, so called, clearly to understand, explain, and defend this doctrine; because it is one grand part of the testimony which God has given them to bear to all mankind. It is by this peculiar blessing upon them in searching the Scriptures, confirmed by the experience of his children, that this great evangelical truth has been recovered, which had been or many years well nigh lost and forgotten.

II. 1. But what is the witness of the Spirit The original word marturia may be rendered either (as it is in several places) the witness, or less ambiguously, the testimony, or the record: So it is rendered in our translation, (1 John 5:11,) "This is the record," the testimony, the sum of what God testifies in all the inspired writings, "that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." The testimony now under consideration is given by the Spirit of God to and with our spirit: He is the Person testifying. What he testifies to us is, "that we are the children of God." The immediate result of this testimony is, "the fruit of the Spirit;" namely, "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness:" and without these, the testimony itself cannot continue. For it is inevitably destroyed, not only by the commission of any outward sin, or the omission of known duty, but by giving way to any inward sin; in a word, by whatever grieves the Holy Spirit of God. 2. I observed many years ago, "It is hard to find words in the language of men, to explain the deep things of God. Indeed there are none that will adequately express what the Spirit of God works in his children. But perhaps one might say, (desiring any who are taught of God, to correct, soften, or strengthen the expression,) By the testimony of the Spirit, I mean, an inward impression on the soul whereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God." 3. After twenty years' further consideration, I see no cause to retract any part of this. Neither do I conceive how any of these expressions may be altered, so as to make them more intelligible. I can only add, that if any of the children of God will point out any other expressions, which are more clear, or more agreeable to the word of God, I will readily lay these aside.

4. Meantime let it be observed, I do not mean hereby, that the Spirit of God testifies this by any outward voice; no, nor always by an inward voice, although he may do this sometimes. Neither do I suppose, that he always applies to the heart (though he often may) one or more texts of Scripture. But he so works upon the soul by his immediate influence, and by a strong, though inexplicable operation, that the stormy wind and troubled waves subside, and there is a sweet calm; the heart resting as in the arms of Jesus, and the sinner being clearly satisfied that God is reconciled, that all his "iniquities are forgiven, and his sins covered." 5. Now what is the matter of dispute concerning this Not whether there be a witness or testimony of the Spirit. Not whether the Spirit does testify with our spirit, that we are the children of God. None can deny this, without flatly contradicting the Scriptures, and charging a lie upon the God of truth. Therefore, that there is a testimony of the Spirit is acknowledged by all parties. 6. Neither is it questioned whether there is an indirect witness or testimony, that we are the children of God. This is nearly, if not exactly, the same with the testimony of a good conscience towards God; and is the result of reason, or reflection on what we feel in our own souls. Strictly speaking, it is a conclusion drawn partly from the word of God, and partly from our own experience. The word of God says, every one who has the fruit of the Spirit is a child of God; experience, or inward consciousness, tells me, that I have the fruit of the Spirit; and hence I rationally conclude, "Therefore I am a child of God." This is likewise allowed on all hands, and so is no matter of controversy. 7. Nor do we assert, that there can be any real testimony of the Spirit without the fruit of the Spirit. We assert, on the contrary, that the fruit of the Spirit immediately springs from this testimony; not always indeed in the same degree, even when the testimony is first given: and much less afterwards neither joy nor peace is always at one stay; no, nor love; as neither is the testimony itself always equally strong and clear.

8. But the point in question is, whether there be any direct testimony of the Spirit at all; whether there be any other testimony of the Spirit, than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit. III. 1. I believe there is; because that is the plain, natural meaning of the text, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." It is manifest, here are two witnesses mentioned, who together testify the same thing; the Spirit of God, and our own spirit. The late Bishop of London, in his sermon on this text, seems astonished that any one can doubt of this, which appears upon the very face of the words. Now, "The testimony of our own spirit," says the Bishop, "is one, which is the consciousness of our own sincerity;" or, to express the same thing a little more clearly, the consciousness of the fruit of the Spirit. When our spirit is conscious of this, of love, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, it easily infers from these premises, that we are the children of God. 2. It is true, that great man supposed the other witness to be, "The consciousness of our won good works." This, he affirms, is the testimony of God's Spirit. But this is included in the testimony of our own spirit; yea, and in sincerity, even according to the common sense of the word. So the Apostle, "Our rejoicing in this, the testimony our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity refers to our words and actions, as least as much as to our inward dispositions. So that this is not another witness, but the very same that he mentioned before; the consciousness of our good works being only one branch of the consciousness of our sincerity. Consequently here is only one witness still. If therefore the text speaks of two witnesses, one of these is not the consciousness of our good works, neither of our sincerity; all this being manifestly contained in the testimony of our spirit. 3. What then is the other witness This might easily be learned, if the text itself were not sufficiently clear, from the verse immediately preceding: Ye have received, not the spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father: It follows, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.

4. This is farther explained by the parallel text, (Gal. 4:6,) "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father." Is not this something immediate and direct, not the result of reflection or argumentation Does not his Spirit cry, "Abba, Father," in our hearts the moment it is given, antecedently to any reflection upon our sincerity; yea, to any reasoning whatsoever And is not this the plain natural sense of the words, which strikes any one as soon as he hears them All these texts then, in their most obvious meaning, describe a direct testimony of the Spirit. 5. That the testimony of the Spirit of God must, in the very nature of things, be antecedent to the testimony of our own spirit, may appear from this single consideration: We must be holy in heart and life before we can be conscious that we are so. But we must love God before we can be holy at all, this being the root of holiness. Now we cannot love God, till we know he loves us: We love him, because he first loved us: And we cannot know his love to us, till his Spirit witnesses it to our spirit. Till then we cannot believe it; we cannot say, "The life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Then, only then we feel Our interest in his blood, And cry, with joy unspeakable, Thou art my Lord, my God! Since, therefore, the testimony of his Spirit must precede the love of God, and all holiness, of consequence it must precede our consciousness thereof.

6. And here properly comes in, to confirm this scriptural doctrine, the experience of the children of God; the experience not of two or three, not of a few, but of a great multitude which no man can number. It has been confirmed, both in this, and in all ages, by "a cloud" of living and dying "witnesses." It is confirmed by your experience and mine. The Spirit itself bore witness to my spirit that I was a child of God, gave me an evidence hereof, and I immediately cried, "Abba, Father!" And this I did, (and so did you,) before I reflected on, or was conscious of, any fruit of the Spirit. It was from this testimony received, that love, joy, peace, and the whole fruit of the Spirit flowed. First, I heard, Thy sins are forgiven! Accepted thou art! -- I listen and heaven sprung up in my heart.

7. But this is confirmed, not only by experience of the children of God; -- thousands of whom can declare that they never did know themselves to be in the favour of God till it was directly witnessed to them by his Spirit; --but by all those who are convinced of sin, who feel the wrath of God abiding on them. These cannot be satisfied with any thing less than a direct testimony from his Spirit, that he is "merciful to their unrighteousness, and remembers their sins and iniquities no more." Tell any of these, "You are to know you are a child, by reflecting on what he has wrought in you, on your love, joy, and peace; and will he not immediately reply, "By all this I know I am a child of the devil I have no more love to God than the devil has; my carnal mind is enmity against God. I have no joy in the Holy Ghost; my soul is sorrowful even unto death. I have no peace; my heart is a troubled sea; I am all storm and tempest." And which way can these souls possibly be comforted, but by a divine testimony not that they are good, or sincere, or conformable to the Scripture in heart and life, but) that God justifieth the ungodly --him that, till the moment he is justified, is all ungodly, void of all true holiness; him that worketh not, that worketh nothing that is truly good, till he is conscious that he is accepted, not for any works of righteousness which he hath done, but by the mere, free mercy of God; wholly and solely for what the Son of God hath done and suffered for him. And can it be any otherwise, if "a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law" If so, what inward or outward goodness can he be conscious of, antecedent to his justification Nay, is not the having nothing to pay, that is, the being conscious that "there dwelleth in us no good thing," neither inward nor outward goodness, essentially, indispensably necessary, before we can be "justified freely, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ" Was ever any man justified since his coming into the world, or can any man ever be justified, till he is brought to that point, I give up every plea beside, --

Lord, I am damn'd; but Thou has died 8. Every one, therefore, who denies the existence of such a testimony, does in effect deny justification by faith. It follows, that either he never experienced this, either he never was justified, or that be has forgotten, as St. Peter speaks, tou kaqarismou tvn palai amartivn, the purification from his former sins, the experience he then had himself; the manner wherein God wrought in his own soul, when his former sins were blotted out. 9. And the experience even of the children of the world here confirms that of the children of God. Many of these have a desire to please God: Some of them take much pains to please him: But do they not, one and all, count it the highest absurdity for any to talk of knowing his sins are forgiven Which of them even pretends to any such thing And yet many of them are conscious of their own sincerity. Many of them undoubtedly have, in a degree, the testimony of their own spirit, a consciousness of their own uprightness. But this brings them no consciousness that they are forgiven; no knowledge that they are the children of God. Yea, the more sincere they are, the more uneasy they generally are, for want of knowing it; plainly showing that this cannot be known, in a satisfactory manner, by the bare testimony of our own spirit, without God's directly testifying that we are his children. IV. But abundance of objections have been made to this; the chief of which it may be well to consider. 1. It is objected, First, "Experience is not sufficient to prove a doctrine which is not founded on Scripture." This is undoubtedly true; and it is an important truth; but it does not affect the present question; for it has been shown, that this doctrine is founded on Scripture: Therefore experience is properly alleged to confirm it. 2. But madmen, French prophets, and enthusiasts of every kind, have imagined they experienced this witness. They have so; and perhaps not a few of them did, although they did not retain it long: But if they did not, this is no proof at all that others have not experienced it; as a madman's imagining himself a king, does not prove that there are no real kings.

"Nay, many who pleaded strongly for this, have utterly decried the Bible." Perhaps so; but this was no necessary consequence: Thousands plead for it who have the highest esteem for the Bible. "Yea, but many have fatally deceived themselves hereby, and got above all conviction." And yet a scriptural doctrine is no worse though men abuse it to their own destruction. 3. "But I lay it down as an undoubted truth, the fruit of the Spirit is the witness of the Spirit." Not undoubted; thousands doubt of, yea, flatly deny it: But let that pass. If this witness be sufficient, there is no need of any other. But it is sufficient, unless in one of these cases, 1. The total absence of the fruit of the Spirit. And this is the case, when the direct witness is first given. 2. The not perceiving it. But to contend for it in this case, is to contend for being in the favour of God, and not knowing it. True; not knowing it at that time any otherwise than by the testimony which is given for that end. And this we do contend for; we contend that the direct witness may shine clear, even while the indirect one is under a cloud.

6. It is objected, Fourthly, "The Scripture says, `The tree is known by its fruits. Prove all things. Try the spirits. Examine yourselves.'" Most true: Therefore, let every man who believes he hath the witness in himself, try whether it be of God; if the fruit follow, it is; otherwise it is not. For certainly "the tree is known by its fruit:" Hereby we prove if it be of God. "But the direct witness is never referred to in the Book of God." Not as standing alone; not as a single witness; but as connected with the other; as giving a joint testimony; testifying with our spirit, that we are children of God. And who is able to prove, that it is not thus referred to in this very Scripture "Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your ownselves, that Jesus Christ is in you" It is by no means clear, that they did not know this by a direct as well as a remote witness. How is it proved, that they did not know it, First, by an inward consciousness; and Then, by love, joy and peace 7. "But the testimony arising from the internal and external change is constantly referred to in the Bible. It is so: And we constantly refer thereto, to confirm the testimony of the Spirit. "Nay, all the marks you have given, whereby to distinguish the operations of God's Spirit from delusion, refer to the change wrought in us and upon us. This, likewise, is undoubtedly true. 8. It is objected, Fifthly, that "the direct witness of the Spirit does not secure us from the greatest delusion. And is that a witness fit to be trusted, whose testimony cannot be depended on That is forced to fly to something else, to prove what it asserts" I answer: To secure us from all delusion, God gives us two witnesses that we are his children. And this they testify conjointly. Therefore, "what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." And while they are joined, we cannot be deluded: Their testimony can be depended on. They are fit to be trusted in the highest degree, and need nothing else to prove what they assert.

"Nay, the direct witness only asserts, but does not prove, any thing." By two witnesses shall every word be established. And when the Spirit witnesses with our spirit, as God designs it to do, then it fully proves that we are children of God. 9. It is objected, Sixthly, You own the change wrought is a sufficient testimony, unless in the case of severe trials, such as that of our Saviour upon the cross; but none of us can be tried in that manner. But you or I may be tried in such a manner, and so may any other child of God, that it will be impossible for us to keep our filial confidence in God without the direct witness of his Spirit. 10. It is objected, Lastly, "The greatest contenders for it are some of the proudest and most uncharitable of men." Perhaps some of the hottest contenders for it are both proud and uncharitable; but many of the firmest contenders for it are eminently meek and lowly in heart; and, indeed, in all other respects also, True followers of their lamb-like Lord. The preceding objections are the most considerable that I have heard, and I believe contain the strength of the cause. Yet I apprehend whoever calmly and impartially considers those objections and the answers together, will easily see that they do not destroy, no, nor weaken, the evidence of that great truth, that the Spirit of God does directly as well as indirectly, testify that we are children of God.

V. 1. The sum of all this is: The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the souls of believers, whereby the Spirit of God directly testifies to their spirit, that they are children of God. And it is not questioned, whether there is a testimony of the Spirit; but whether there is an direct testimony; whether there is any other than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit of the Spirit. We believe there is; because this is the plain natural meaning of the text, illustrated both by the preceding words, and by the parallel passage in the Epistle to the Galatians; because, in the nature of the thing, the testimony must precede the fruit which springs from it and because this plain meaning of the word of God is confirmed by the experience of innumerable children of God; yea, and by the experience of all who are convinced of sin, who can never rest till they have a direct witness; and even of the children of the world, who, not having the witness in themselves, one and all declare, none can know his sins forgiven.

2. And whereas it is objected, that experience is not sufficient to prove a doctrine unsupported by Scripture; -- that madmen and enthusiasts of every kind have imagined such a witness that the design of that witness is to prove our profession genuine, which design it does not answer; -- that the Scripture says, "The tree is known by its fruit;" "examine yourselves; prove your ownselves;" and, meantime, the direct witness is never referred to in all the Book of God; -- that it does not secure us from the greatest delusions; and, Lastly,, that the change wrought in us is a sufficient testimony, unless in such trials as Christ alone suffered: -- We answer, 1. Experience is sufficient to confirm a doctrine which is grounded on Scripture. 2. Though many fancy they experience what they do not, this is no prejudice to real experience. 3.The design of that witness is, to assure us we are children of God; and this design it does answer. 4. The true witness of the Spirit is known by its fruit, "love, peace, joy;" not indeed preceding, but following it. 5. It cannot be proved, that the direct as well as the indirect witness is not referred to in that very text, "Know ye not your ownselves, that Jesus Christ is in you 6. The Spirit of God, witnessing with our spirit, does secure us from all delusion: And, Lastly, we are all liable to trials, wherein the testimony of our own spirit is not sufficient; wherein nothing less than the direct testimony of God's Spirit can assure us that we are his children.

3. Two inferences may be drawn from the whole: The First, let none ever presume to rest in any supposed testimony of the Spirit which is separate from the fruit of it. If the Spirit of God does really testify that we are the children of God, the immediate consequence will be the fruit of the Spirit, even "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance." And however this fruit may be clouded for a while, during the time of strong temptation, so that it does not appear to the tempted person, while Satan is sifting him as wheat; yet the substantial part of it remains, even under the thickest cloud. It is true, joy in the Holy Ghost may be withdrawn, during the hour of trial; yea, the soul may be "exceeding sorrowful," while "the hour and power of darkness" continue; but even this is generally restored with increase, till we rejoice "with joy unspeakable and full of glory."

4. The Second inference, is, let none rest in any supposed fruit of the Spirit without the witness. There may be foretastes of the Spirit without the witness. There may be foretastes of joy, of peace, of love, and those not delusive, but really from God, long before we have the witness in ourselves; before the Spirit of God witnesses with our spirits that we have "redemption in the blood of Jesus, even the forgiveness of sins." Yea, there may be a degree of long-suffering, of gentleness, of fidelity, meekness, temperance, (not a shadow thereof, but a real degree, by the preventing grace of God,) before we "are accepted in the Beloved," and, consequently, before we have a testimony of our acceptance: But it is by no means advisable to rest here; it is at the peril of our souls if we do. If we are wise, we shall be continually crying to God, until his Spirit cry in our heart, "Abba, Father!" This is the privilege of all the children of God, and without this we can never be assured that we are his children. Without this we cannot retain a steady peace, nor avoid perplexing doubts and fears. But when we have once received this Spirit of adoption, this "peace which passeth all understanding," and which expels all painful doubt and fear, will "keep our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus." And when this has brought forth its genuine fruit, all inward and outward holiness, it is undoubtedly the will of Him that calleth us, to give us always what he has once given; so that there is no need that we should ever more be deprived of either the testimony of God's Spirit, or the testimony of our own, the consciousness of our walking in all righteousness and true holiness. Newry, April 4, 1767.

The Witness of Our Own Spirit "This is our rejoicing, the testimony of out conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world." (2 Cor. 1:12.) 1. Such is the voice of every true believer in Christ, so long as he abides in faith and love. "He that followeth me," saith our Lord, "walketh not in darkness:" And while he hath the light, he rejoiceth therein. As he hath "received the Lord Jesus Christ," so he walketh in him; and while he walketh in him, the exhortation of the Apostle takes place in his soul, day by day, "Rejoice in the Lord always; and again I say, Rejoice." 2. But that we may not build our house upon the sand, (lest when the rains descend, and the winds blow, and the floods arise and beat up it, it fall and great be the fall thereof,) I intend in the following discourse to show, what is the nature and ground of a Christian's joy. We know, in general, it is that happy peace, that calm satisfaction of spirit, which arises from such a testimony of his conscience, as is here described by the Apostle. But, in order to understand this the more thoroughly, it will be requisite to weigh all his words; whence will easily appear, both what we are to understand by conscience, and what by the testimony thereof; and also, how he that hath this testimony rejoiceth evermore. 3. And, First, what are we to understand by conscience What is the meaning of this word that is in every one's mouth One would imagine it was an exceedingly difficult thing to discover this, when we consider how large and numerous volumes have been from time to time wrote on this subject; and how all the treasures of ancient and modern learning have been ransacked, in order to explain it. And yet it is to be feared, it has not received much light from all those elaborate inquiries. Rather, have not most of those writers puzzled the cause; "darkening counsel by words without knowledge;" perplexing a subject, plain in itself, and easy to be understood For, set aside but hard words, and every man of an honest heart will soon understand the thing.

4. God has made us thinking beings, capable of perceiving what is present, and of reflecting or looking back on what is past. In particular, we are capable of perceiving whatsoever passes in our own hearts or lives; of knowing whatsoever we feel or do; and that either while it passes, or when it is past. This we mean when we say, man is a conscious being: He hath a consciousness, or inward perception, both of things present and past, relating to himself, of his own tempers and outward behavior. But what we usually term conscience, implies somewhat more than this. It is not barely the knowledge of our present or the remembrance of our preceding life. To remember, to bear witness either of past or present things, is only one, and the least office of conscience: Its main business is to excuse or accuse, to approve or disapprove, to acquit or condemn. 5. Some latter writers indeed have given a new name to this, and have chose to style it a moral sense. But the old word seems preferable to the new, were it only on this account, that it is more common and familiar among men, and therefore easier to be understood. And to Christians it is undeniably preferable, on another account also; namely, because it is scriptural; because it is the word which the wisdom of God hath chose to use in the inspired writings. And according to the meaning wherein it is generally used there, particularly in the Epistles of St. Paul, we may understand by conscience, a faculty or power, implanted by God in every soul that comes into the world, of perceiving what is right or wrong in his own heart or life, in his tempers, thoughts, words, and actions.

8. But whoever desires to have a conscience thus void of offence, let him see that he lay the right foundation. Let him remember, "other foundation" of this "can no man lay, than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ." And let him also be mindful, that no man buildeth on him but by a living faith; that no man is a partaker of Christ, until he can clearly testify, "The life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God;" in him who is now revealed in my heart; who "loved me, and gave himself for me." Faith alone is that evidence, that conviction, that demonstration of things invisible, whereby the eyes of our understanding being opened, and divine light poured in upon them, we "see the wondrous things of God's law;" the excellency and purity of it; the height, and depth, and length, and breadth thereof, and of every commandment contained therein. It is by faith that, beholding "the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," we perceive, as in a glass, all that is in ourselves, yea, the inmost motions of our souls. And by this alone can that blessed love of God be "shed abroad in our hearts," which enables us so to love one another as Christ loved us. By this is that gracious promise fulfilled unto all the Israel of God, "I will put my laws into their mind, and write" (or engrave) "them in their hearts;" (Heb. 8:10;) hereby producing in their souls an entire agreement with his holy and perfect law, and "bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." And, as an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, so a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. As the heart therefore of a believer, so likewise his life, is thoroughly conformed to the rule of God's commandments; in a consciousness whereof, he can give glory to God, and say with the Apostle, "This is our rejoicing, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world."

14. "Not with fleshly wisdom:" As if he had said, "We cannot thus converse in the world, by any natural strength of understanding, neither by any naturally acquired knowledge or wisdom. We cannot gain this simplicity, or practise this sincerity, by the force either of good sense, good nature, or good breeding. It overshoots all our native courage and resolution, as well as all our precepts of philosophy. The power of custom is not able to train us up to this, nor the most exquisite rules of human education. Neither could I Paul ever attain hereto, notwithstanding all the advantages I enjoyed, so long as I was in the flesh, in my natural state, and pursued it only by fleshly, natural wisdom." And yet surely, if any man could, Paul himself might have attained thereto by that wisdom: For we can hardly conceive any who was more highly favoured with all the gifts both of nature and education. Besides his natural abilities, probably not inferior to those of any person then up the earth, he had all the benefits of learning, studying at the University of Tarsus, afterwards brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, a person of the greatest account, both for knowledge and integrity, that was then in the whole Jewish nation. And he had all the possible advantages of religious education, being a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, trained up in the very straitest sect or profession, distinguished from all others by a more eminent strictness. And herein he had "profited above many" others, "who were his equals" in years, "being more abundantly zealous" of whatever he thought would please God, and "as touching the righteousness of the law, blameless." But it could not be, that he should hereby attain this simplicity and godly sincerity. It was all but lost labour; in a deep, piercing sense of which he was at length constrained to cry out, "The things which were gain to me, those I counted loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord." (Phil. 3:7, 8.)

15. It could not be that ever he should attain to this but by the "excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ" our Lord; or, "by the grace of God," -- another expression of nearly the same import. By "the grace of God" is sometimes to be understood that free love, that unmerited mercy, by which I a sinner, through the merits of Christ, am now reconciled to God. But in this place it rather means that power of God the Holy Ghost, which "worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure." As soon as ever the grace of God in the former sense, his pardoning love, is manifested to our souls, the grace of God in the latter sense, the power of his Spirit, takes place therein. And now we can perform, through God, what to man was impossible. Now we can order our conversation aright. We can do all things in the light and power of that love, through Christ which strengtheneth us. We now have "the testimony of our conscience," which we could never have by fleshly wisdom, "that in simplicity and godly sincerity, we have our conversation in the world."

16. This is properly the ground of a Christian's joy. We may now therefore readily conceive, how he that hath this testimony in himself rejoiceth evermore. "My soul," may he say, "doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit rejoiceth in God my Saviour." I rejoice in him, who, of his own unmerited love, of his own free and tender mercy, "hath called me into this state of salvation," wherein, through his power, I now stand. I rejoice, because his spirit beareth witness to my spirit, that I am bought with the blood of the Lamb; and that, believing in him, "I am a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." I rejoice, because the sense of God's love to me hath, by the same Spirit, wrought in me to love him, and to love for his sake every child of man, every soul that hath made. I rejoice, because he gives me to feel in myself "the mind that was in Christ:" -- Simplicity, a single eye to him, in every motion of my heart; power always to fix the loving eye of my soul on Him who "loved me, and gave himself for me;" to aim at him alone, at his glorious will, in all I think, or speak, or do: -- Purity, desiring nothing more but God; "crucifying the flesh with its affections and lusts;" "setting my affections on things above, not on things of the earth:" -- Holiness, a recovery of the image of God, a renewal of soul "after his likeness:" -- And Godly Sincerity, directing all my words and works, so as to conduce to his glory. In this I likewise rejoice, yea, and will rejoice, because my conscience beareth me witness in the Holy Ghost, by the light he continually pours in upon it, that "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith I am called;" that I "abstain from all appearance of evil," fleeing from sin as from the face of a serpent; that as I have opportunity I do all possible good, in every kind, to all men; that I follow my Lord in all my steps, and do what is acceptable in his sight.

17. Such is the ground and the nature of that joy whereby an adult Christian rejoiceth evermore. And from all this we may easily infer, First, that this is not a natural joy. It does not arise from any natural cause: Not from any sudden flow of spirits. This may give a transient start of joy; but the Christian rejoiceth always. It cannot be owing to bodily health or ease; to strength and soundness of constitution: For it is equally strong in sickness and pain; yea, perhaps far stronger than before. Many Christians have never experienced any joy, to be compared with that which then filled their soul, when the body was well nigh worn out with pain, or consumed away with pining sickness. Least of all can it be ascribed to outward prosperity, to the favour of men, or plenty of worldly goods; for then, chiefly, when their faith has been tried as with fire, by all manner of outward afflictions, have the children of God rejoiced in Him, whom unseen they loved, even with joy unspeakable. And never surely did men rejoice like those who were used as "the filth and off scouring of the world;" who wandered to and fro, being in want of all things; in hunger, in cold, in nakedness; who had trials, not only of "cruel mockings," but, "moreover of bonds and imprisonments;" yea, who, at last, "counted not their lives dear unto themselves, so they might finish their course with joy."

On Sin in Believers "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." 2 Cor. 5:17. I. 1. Is there then sin in him that is in Christ Does sin remain in one that believes in him Is there any sin in them that are born of God, or are they wholly delivered from it Let no one imagine this to be a question of mere curiosity; or that it is of little importance whether it be determined one way or the other. Rather it is a point of the utmost moment to every serious Christian; the resolving of which very nearly concerns both his present and eternal happiness. 2. And yet I do not know that ever it was controverted in the primitive Church. Indeed there was no room for disputing concerning it, as all Christians were agreed. And so far as I have observed, the whole body of ancient Christians, who have left us anything in writing, declare with one voice, that even believers in Christ, till they are "strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might," have need to "wrestle with flesh and blood," with an evil nature, as well as "with principalities and powers." 3. And herein our own Church (as indeed in most points) exactly copies after the primitive; declaring in her Ninth Article, "Original sin is the corruption of the nature of every man, whereby man is in his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth contrary to the Spirit. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek jronhma sarkos, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe, yet this lust hath of itself the nature of sin." 4. The same testimony is given by all other Churches; not only by the Greek and Romish Church, but by every Reformed Church in Europe, of whatever denomination. Indeed some of these seem to carry the thing too far; so describing the corruption of heart in a believer, as scarce to allow that he has dominion over it, but rather is in bondage thereto; and, by this means, they leave hardly any distinction between a believer and an unbeliever.

I will also save you from all your uncleannesses" (Ezek. 36:25, &c.) So likewise in the New Testament, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us, -- to perform the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hands of our enemies should serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life" (Luke 1:68, &c.) 3. You have therefore good reason to believe, he is not only able, but willing to do this; to cleanse you from all your filthiness of flesh and spirit; to "save you from all your uncleannesses." This is the thing which you now long for; this is the faith which you now particularly need, namely, that the Great Physician, the Lover of my soul, is willing to make me clean. But is he willing to do this to-morrow, or to-day Let him answer for himself: "To-day, if ye will hear" My "voice, harden not your hearts." If you put it off till to-morrow, you harden your hearts; you refuse to hear his voice. Believe, therefore, that he is willing to save you to-day. He is willing to save you now. "Behold, now is the accepted time." He now saith, "Be thou clean!" Only believe, and you also will immediately find, "all things are possible to him that believeth." 4. Continue to believe in him that loved thee, and gave himself for thee; that bore all thy sins in his own body on the tree; and he saveth thee from all condemnation, by his blood continually applied. Thus it is that we continue in a justified state. And when we go "from faith to faith, when we have faith to be cleansed from indwelling sin, to be saved from all our uncleannesses, we are likewise saved from all that guilt, that desert of punishment, which we felt before. So that then we may say, not only, Every moment, Lord, I want The merit of thy death; but, likewise, in the full assurance of faith, Every moment, Lord, I have The merit of thy death!

6. Yea, he will bring to light, not the hidden works of darkness only, but the very thoughts and intents of the heart. And what marvel For he "searcheth the reins, and understandeth all our thoughts." "All things are naked and open to the eyes of him with whom we have to do." "Hell and destruction are before him without a covering. How much more the hearts of the children of men!" 7. And in that day shall be discovered every inward working of every human soul; every appetite, passion, inclination, affection, with the various combinations of them, with every temper and disposition that constitute the whole complex character of each individual. So shall it be clearly and infallibly seen, who was righteous, and who unrighteous; and in what degree every action, or person, or character was either good or evil. 8. "Then the King will say to them upon his right hand, Come, ye blessed of My Father. For I was hungry, and ye gave Me meat; thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in; naked, and ye clothed me." In like manner, all the good they did upon earth will be recited before men and angels; whatsoever they had done, either in word or deed, in the name, or for the sake, of the Lord Jesus. All their good desires, intentions, thoughts, all their holy dispositions, will also be then remembered; and it will appear, that though they were unknown or forgotten among men, yet God noted them in his book. All their sufferings likewise for the name of Jesus, and for the testimony of a good conscience, will be displayed unto their praise from the righteous Judge, their honor before saints and angels, and the increase of that "far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory."

4. Suffer me to add a few words to all of you who are at this day present before the Lord. Should not you bear it in your minds all the day long, that a more awful day is coming A large assembly this! But what is it to that which every eye will then behold, the general assembly of all the children of men that ever lived on the face of the whole earth A few will stand at the judgement-seat this day, to be judged touching what shall be laid to their charge; and they are now reserved in prison, perhaps in chains, till they are brought forth to be tried and sentenced. But we shall all, I that speak and you that hear, "stand at the judgement-seat of Christ." And we are now reserved on this earth, which is not our home, in this prison of flesh and blood, perhaps many of us in chains of darkness too, till we are ordered to be brought forth. Here a man is questioned concerning one or two facts, which he is supposed to have committed: there we are to give an account of all our works, from the cradle to the grave; of all our words; of all our desires and tempers, all the thoughts and intents of our hearts; of all the use we have made of our various talents, whether of mind, body, or fortune, till God said, "Give an account of thy stewardship, for thou mayest be no longer steward." In this court, it is possible, some who are guilty may escape for want of evidence; but there is no want of evidence in that court. All men, with whom you had the most secret intercourse, who were privy to all your designs and actions, are ready before your face. So are all the spirits of darkness, who inspired evil designs and assisted in the execution of them. So are all the angels of God; those eyes of the Lord, that run to and fro over all the earth, who watched over your soul, and labored for your good, so far as you would permit. So is your own conscience, a thousand witnesses in one, now no more capable of being either blinded or silenced, but constrained to know and to speak the naked truth, touching all your thoughts, and words, and actions.

9. Those who are thus by faith born of God, have also strong consolation through hope. This is the next thing which the circumcision of the heart implies; even the testimony of their own spirit with the Spirit which witnesses in their hearts that * N. B. The following part of this paragraph is now added to the Sermon formerly preached.

they are the children of God. Indeed it is the same Spirit who works in them that clear and cheerful confidence that their heart is upright toward God; that good assurance, that they now do, through his grace, the things which are acceptable in his sight; that they are now in the path which leadeth to life, and shall, by the mercy of God, endure therein to the end. It is He who giveth them a lively expectation of receiving all good things at God's hand; a joyous prospect of that crown of glory, which is reserved in heaven for them. By this anchor a Christian is kept steady in the midst of the waves of this troublesome world, and preserved from striking upon either of those fatal rocks, -- presumption or despair. He is neither discouraged by the misconceived severity of his Lord, nor does He despise the riches of his goodness." He neither apprehends the difficulties of the race set before him to be greater than he has strength to conquer, nor expects there to be so little as to yield in the conquest, till he has put forth all strength. The experience he already has in the Christian warfare, as it assures him his "labor is not in vain," if "whatever his findeth to do, he doeth it with his might;" so it forbids his entertaining so vain a thought, as that he can otherwise gain any advantage, as that any virtue can be shown, any praise attained, by faint hearts and feeble hands; or, indeed, by any but those who pursue the same course with the great Apostle of the Gentiles - "I," says he, "so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest, by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." 10. By the same discipline is every good soldier of Christ to inure himself to endure hardship. Confirmed and strengthened by this, he will be able not only to renounce the works of darkness, but every appetite too, and every affection, which is no subject to the law of God. For "every one," saith St.

This, therefore, can never be the meaning of his command. What the real sense of it is, both our blessed Lord and his Apostles tell us too frequently, and too plainly, to be misunderstood. They all with one mouth bear witness, that the true meaning of those several declarations, "The Lord thy God is one Lord;" "Thou shalt have no other Gods but me;" "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength" "Thou shalt cleave unto him;" "The desire of thy soul shall be to His name;" -- is no other than this: The one perfect Good shall be your one ultimate end. One thing shall ye desire for its own sake, -- the fruition of Him that is All in All. One happiness shall ye propose to your souls, even an union with Him that made them; the having "fellowship with the Father and the Son;" the being joined to the Lord in one Spirit. One design you are to pursue to the end of time, -- the enjoyment of God in time and in eternity. Desire other things, so far as they tend to this. Love the creature as it leads to the Creator. But in every step you take, be this the glorious point that terminates your view. Let every affection, and thought, and word, and work, be subordinate to this. Whatever ye desire or fear, whatever ye seek or shun, whatever ye think, speak, or do, be it in order to your happiness in God, the sole End, us well as Source, of your being. 13. Have no end, to ultimate end, but God. Thus our Lord: "One thing is needful:" And if thine eye be singly fixed on this one thing, "thy whole body shall be full of light." Thus St. Paul: "This one thing I do; I press toward the mark, for the prize of the high calling in Christ Jesus." Thus St. James: "Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double-minded." Thus St. John: "love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.

6. But if these things are so, it is high time for those persons to deal faithfully with their own souls who are so far from finding in themselves this joyful assurance that they fulfil the terms, and shall obtain the promises, of that covenant, as to quarrel with the covenant itself, and blaspheme the terms of it; to complain, they are too severe; and that no man ever did or shall live up to them. What is this but to reproach God, as if He were a hard Master, requiring of his servants more than he enables them to perform -- as if he had mocked the helpless works of his hands, by binding them to impossibilities; by commanding them to overcome, where neither their own strength nor grace was sufficient for them. 7. These blasphemers might almost persuade those to imagine themselves guiltless, who, in the contrary extreme, hope to fulfil the commands of God, without taking any pains at all. Vain hope ! that a child of Adam should ever expect to see the kingdom of Christ and of God, without striving, without agonizing, first "to enter in at the strait gate;"-that one who v. as "conceived and born in sin," and whose "inward parts are very wickedness," should once entertain a thought of being "purified as his Lord is pure," unless he tread in His steps, and "take up his cross daily;" unless he "cut off His right hand," and "pluck out the right eye, and cast it from him ;" -- that he should ever dream of shaking off his old opinions, passions, tempers, of being "sanctified throughout in spirit, soul, and body," without a constant and continued course of general self-denial!

2. But it is not a barely notional or speculative faith that is here spoken of by the Apostles. It is not a bare assent to this proposition, Jesus is the Christ; nor indeed to all the propositions contained in our creed, or in the Old and New Testament. It is not merely an assent to any or all these credible things, as credible. To say this, were to say (which who could hear) that the devils were born of God; for they have this faith. They, trembling, believe, both that Jesus is the Christ, and that all Scripture, having been given by inspiration of God, is true as God is true. It is not only an assent to divine truth, upon the testimony of God, or upon the evidence of miracles; for they also heard the words of his mouth, and knew him to be a faithful and true witness. They could not but receive the testimony he gave, both of himself, and of the Father which sent him. They saw likewise the mighty works which he did, and thence believed that he "came forth from God." Yet, notwithstanding this faith, they are still "reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

II. 1. A Second scriptural mark of those who are born of God, is hope. Thus St. Peter, speaking to all the children of God who were then scattered abroad, saith, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope." (1 Peter 1:3.) Elpida zvsan, a lively or living hope, saith the Apostle; because there is also a dead hope, as well as a dead faith; a hope which is not from God, but from the enemy of God and man; -- as evidently appears by its fruits; for, as it is the offspring of pride, so it is the parent of every evil word and work; whereas, every man that hath in him this living hope, is "holy as He that calleth him is holy:" Every man that can truly say to his brethren in Christ, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and we shall see him as he is," "purifieth himself, even as He is pure." 2. This hope implies, First, the testimony of our own spirit or conscience, that we walk "in simplicity and godly sincerity;" Secondly, the testimony of the Spirit of God, "bearing witness with," or to, "our spirit, that we are the children of God," "and if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ."

IV. 1. Thus have I plainly laid down those marks of the new birth which I find laid down in Scripture. Thus doth God himself answer that weighty question, What is it to be born of God Such, if the appeal be made to the oracles of God, is "every one that is born of the Spirit." This it is, in the judgment of the Spirit of God, to be a son or a child of God: It is, so to believe in God, through Christ, as "not to commit sin," and to enjoy at all times, and in all places, that "peace of God which passeth all understanding." It is, so to hope in God through the Son of his love, as to have not only the "testimony of a good conscience," but also the Spirit of God "bearing witness with your spirits, that ye are the children of God;" whence cannot but spring the rejoicing in Him, through whom ye "have received the atonement." It is, so to love God, who hath thus loved you, as you never did love any creature: So that ye are constrained to love all men as yourselves; with a love not only ever burning in your hearts, but flaming out in all your actions and conversations, and making your whole life one "labour of love," one continued obedience to those commands, "Be ye merciful, as God is merciful;" "Be ye holy, as I the Lord am holy:" "Be ye perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

2. By sin, I here understand outward sin, according to the plain, common acceptation of the word; an actual, voluntary transgression of the law; of the revealed, written law of God; of any commandment of God, acknowledged to be such at the time that it is transgressed. But "whosoever is born of God," while he abideth in faith and love, and in the spirit of prayer and thanksgiving, not only doth not, but cannot, thus commit sin. So long as he thus believeth in God through Christ, and loves him, and is pouring out his heart before him, he cannot voluntarily transgress any command of God, either by speaking or acting what he knows God hath forbidden: So long that seed which remaineth in him, that loving, praying, thankful faith, compels him to refrain from whatsoever he knows to be an abomination in the sight of God. 3. But here a difficulty will immediately occur, and one that to many has appeared insuperable, and induced them to deny the plain assertion of the Apostle, and give up the privilege of the children of God. It is plain, in fact, that those whom we cannot deny to have been truly born of God, (the Spirit of God having given us in his word this infallible testimony concerning them,) nevertheless, not only could, but did, commit sin, even gross, outward sin. They did transgress the plain, known laws of God, speaking or acting what they knew he had forbidden.

6. And this is the doctrine which I have constantly believed and taught, for near eight and twenty years. This I published to all the world in the year 1738, and ten or twelve times since, in those words, and many others to the same effect, extracted from the Homilies of our Church: -- "These things must necessarily go together in our justification; upon God's part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ's part, the satisfaction of God's justice; and on our part, faith in the merits of Christ. So that the grace of God doth not shut out the righteousness of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the righteousness of man, as to deserving our justification." "That we are justified by faith alone, is spoken to take away clearly all merit of our works, and wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification to Christ only. Our justification comes freely of the mere mercy of God. For whereas all the world was not able to pay any part toward our ransom, it pleased Him, without any of our deserving, to prepare for us Christ's body and blood, whereby our ransom might be paid, and his justice satisfied. Christ, therefore, is now the righteousness of all them that truly believe in him." 7. The Hymns published a year or two after this, and since republished several times, (a clear testimony that my judgment was still the same,) speak full to the same purpose. To cite all the passages to this effect, would be to transcribe a great part of the volumes. Take one for all, which was reprinted seven years ago, five years ago, two years ago, and some months since: -- Jesu, thy blood and righteousness My beauty are, my glorious dress: 'Midst flaming worlds in these array'd, With joy shall I lift up my head. The whole hymn expresses the same sentiment, from the beginning to the end.

19. In the meantime what we are afraid of is this: -- lest any should use the phrase, "The righteousness of Christ," or, "The righteousness of Christ is imputed to me," as a cover for his unrighteousness. We have known this done a thousand times. A man has been reproved, suppose for drunkenness: "O", said he, "I pretend to no righteousness of my own; Christ is my righteousness." Another has been told, that "the extortioner, the unjust, shall not inherit the kingdom of God:" He replies, with all assurance, "I am unjust in myself, but I have a spotless righteousness in Christ." And thus, though a man be as far from the practice as from the tempers of a Christian; though he neither has the mind which was in Christ, nor in any respect walks as he walked; yet he has armour of proof against all conviction, in what he calls the "righteousness of Christ." 20. It is the seeing so many deplorable instances of this kind, which makes us sparing in the use of these expressions. And I cannot but call upon all of you who use them frequently, and beseech you in the name of God, our Saviour, whose you are, and whom you serve, earnestly to guard all that hear you against this accursed abuse of them. O warn them (it may be they will hear your voice) against "continuing in sin that grace may abound!" Warn them against making "Christ the minister of sin;" against making void that solemn decree of God, "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord," by a vain imagination of being holy in Christ! O warn them that if they remain unrighteous, the righteousness of Christ will profit them nothing! Cry aloud, (is there not a cause) that for this very end the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, that "the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us;" and that we may "live soberly, religiously, and godly, in this present world."

4. Sure it is, that this "affliction," for the present, "is not joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it bringeth forth peaceable fruit unto them that are exercised thereby." Blessed, therefore, are they that thus mourn, if they "tarry the Lord's leisure," and suffer not themselves to be turned out of the way, by the miserable comforters of the world; if they resolutely reject all the comforts of sin, of folly, and vanity; all the idle diversions and amusements of the world; all the pleasures which "perish in the using," and which only tend to benumb and stupefy the soul, that it may neither be sensible of itself nor God. Blessed are they who "follow on to know the Lord," and steadily refuse all other comfort. They shall be comforted by the consolations of his Spirit; by a fresh manifestation of his love; by such a witness of his accepting them in the Beloved, as shall never more be taken away from them. This "full assurance of faith" swallows up all doubt, as well as all tormenting fear; God now giving them a sure hope of an enduring substance, and "strong consolation through grace." Without disputing whether it be possible for any of those to "fall away, who were once enlightened and made partakers of the Holy Ghost," it suffices them to say, by the power now resting upon them, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ -- I am persuaded, that neither death nor life, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8:35-39.)

11. Love prevents a thousand provocations which would otherwise arise, because it "thinketh no evil." Indeed the merciful man cannot avoid knowing many things that are evil, he cannot but see them with his own eyes, and hear them with his own ears. For love does not put out his eyes, so that it is impossible for him not to see that such things are done; neither does it take away his understanding, any more than his senses, so that he cannot but know that they are evil. For instance: When he sees a man strike his neighbour, or hears him blaspheme God, he cannot either question the thing done, or the words spoken, or doubt of their being evil. Yet, ou logizetai to kakon. The word logizetai, "thinketh," does not refer either to our seeing and hearing, or to the first and involuntary acts of our understanding; but to our willingly thinking what we need not; our inferring evil, where it does not appear; to our reasoning concerning things which we do not see; our supposing what we have neither seen nor heard. This is what true love absolutely destroys. It tears up, root and branch, all imagining what we have not known. It casts out all jealousies, all evil surmisings, all readiness to believe evil. It is frank, open, unsuspicious; and, as it cannot design, so neither does it fear, evil. 12. It "rejoiceth not in iniquity;" common as this is, even among those who bear the name of Christ, who scruple not to rejoice over their enemy, when he falleth either into affliction, or error, or sin. Indeed, how hardly can they avoid this, who are zealously attached to any party! How difficult is it for them not to be pleased with any fault which they discover in those of the opposite party, -- with any real or supposed blemish, either in their principles or practice! What warm defender of any cause is clear of these Yea, who is so calm as to be altogether free Who does not rejoice when his adversary makes a false step, which he thinks will advantage his own cause Only a man of love. He alone weeps over either the sin or folly of his enemy, takes no pleasure in hearing or in repeating it, but rather desires that it may be forgotten for ever.

3. "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Some have conceived our Lord to mean, -- I am come to fulfil this by my entire and perfect obedience to it. And it cannot be doubted but he did, in this sense, fulfil every part of it. But this does not appear to be what He intends here, being foreign to the scope of his present discourse. Without question, his meaning in this place is, (consistently with all that goes before and follows after,) -- I am come to establish it in its fullness, in spite of all the glosses of men: I am come to place in a full and clear view whatsoever was dark or obscure therein: I am come to declare the true and full import of every part of it; to show the length and breadth, the entire extent of every commandment contained therein, and the height and depth, the inconceivable purity and spirituality of it in all its branches. 4. And this our Lord has abundantly performed in the preceding and subsequent parts of the discourse before us, in which He has not introduced a new religion into the world, but the same which was from the beginning: -- a religion the substance of which is, without question, as old as the creation, being coeval with man, and having proceeded from God at the very time when "man became a living soul;" (the substance, I say; for some circumstances of it now relate to man as a fallen creature;) -- a religion witnessed to both by the Law and by the Prophets, in all succeeding generations. Yet was it never so fully explained, nor so thoroughly understood till the great Author of it Himself condescended to give mankind this authentic comment on all the essential branches of it; at the same time declaring it should never be changed, but remain in force to the end of the world. II. 1. "For verily I say unto you," (a solemn preface, which denotes both the importance and certainty of what is spoken,) "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."

17. And if it should be that one of these, by the mighty power of God, awoke and asked, "What must I do to be saved" the answer, according to the oracles of God, is clear, full, and express. God doth not say to thee, "Sell all that thou hast." Indeed he who seeth the hearts of men saw it needful to enjoin this in one peculiar case, that of the young, rich ruler. But he never laid it down for a general rule to all rich men, in all succeeding generations. His general direction is, first, "Be not high minded." God seeth not as man seeth." He esteems thee not for thy riches, grandeur or equipage, for any qualification or accomplishment which is directly or indirectly owing to thy wealth, which can be bought or procured thereby. All these are with him as dung and dross: let them be so with thee also. Beware thou think not thyself to be one jot wiser or better for all these things. Weigh thyself in another balance: estimate thyself only by the measure of faith and love which God hath given thee. If thou hast more of the knowledge and love of God than he, thou art on this account, and no other, wiser and better, more valuable and honourable than him who is with the dogs of thy flock. But if thou hast not this treasure those art more foolish, more vile, more truly contemptible, I will not say, than the lowest servant under thy roof, but than the beggar laid at thy gate, full of sores. 18. Secondly. "Trust not in uncertain riches." Trust not in them for help: And trust not in them for happiness.

19. It is in compassion to the hardness of our hearts, so unready to believe the goodness of God, that our Lord is pleased to enlarge upon this head, and to repeat and confirm what he hath spoken. "For everyone," saith he, "that asketh, receiveth;" so that none need come short of the blessing; "and he that seeketh," even everyone that seeketh, "findeth" the love and the image of God; "and to him that knocketh," to everyone that knocketh, the gate of righteousness shall be opened. So that here is no room for any to be discouraged, as though they might ask or seek or knock in vain. Only remember always to pray, to seek, to knock, and not to faint. And then the promise standeth sure. It is firm as the pillars of heaven; -- yea, more firm; for heaven and earth shall pass away; but his word shall not pass away. 20. To cut off every pretence for unbelief, our blessed Lord, in the following verses, illustrates yet farther what he had said, by an appeal to what passes in our own breasts. "What man," saith he, "is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will give him a stone" Will even natural affection permit you to refuse the reasonable request of one you love "Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent" Will he give him hurtful instead of profitable things So that even from what you feel and do yourselves you may receive the fullest assurance, as on the one hand that no ill effect can possibly attend your asking, so, on the other, that it will be attended with that good effect, a full supply of all your wants. For "if ye, being evil, know I how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven," who is pure, unmixed, essential goodness, "give good things to them that ask him!" or, (as he expresses it on another occasion,) "give the Holy Ghost to them that ask him" In him are included all good things; all wisdom, peace, joy, love; the whole treasures of holiness and happiness; all that God hath prepared for them that love him.

9. All, therefore, which I can say, is this: in any particular case, wait upon God by humble and earnest prayer, and then act according to the best light you have: Act according to what you are persuaded, upon the whole, will be most for your spiritual advantage. Take great care that you do not judge rashly; that you do not lightly think any to be false prophets: And when you have full proof, see that no anger or contempt have any place in your heart. After this, in the presence and in the fear of God, determine for yourself. I can only say, If by experience you find that the hearing them hurts your soul, then hear them not; then quietly refrain, and hear those that profit you. If, on the other hand, you find it does not hurt your soul, you then may hear them still. Only "take heed how you hear:" Beware of them and of their doctrine. Hear with fear and trembling, lest you should be deceived, and given up, like them, to a strong delusion. As they continually mingle truth and lies, how easily may you take in both together! Hear with fervent and continual prayer to Him who alone teacheth man wisdom. And see that you bring whatever you hear "to the law and to the testimony." Receive nothing untried, nothing till it is weighed in the balance of the sanctuary: Believe nothing they say, unless it is clearly confirmed by passages of holy writ. Wholly reject whatsoever differs therefrom, whatever is not confirmed thereby. And, in particular, reject, with the utmost abhorrence, whatsoever is described as the way of salvation, that is either different from, or short of, the way our Lord has marked out in the foregoing discourse.

12. And it is good in its effects, as well as in its nature. As the tree is, so are its fruits. The fruits of the law of God written in the heart are "righteousness, and peace, and assurance for ever." Or rather, the law itself is righteousness, filling the soul with a peace which passeth all understanding, and causing us to rejoice evermore, in the testimony of a good conscience toward God. It is to so properly a pledge, as "an earnest, of our inheritance," being a part of the purchased possession. It is God made manifest in our flesh, and bringing with him eternal life; assuring us by that pure and perfect love, that we are "sealed unto the day of redemption;" that he will "spare us as a man spareth his own son that serveth him," "in that day when he maketh up his jewels;" and that there remaineth for us "a crown of glory which fadeth not away."

The Nature Of Enthusiasm "And Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself." Acts 26:24. 1. And so say all the world, the men who know not God, of all that are of Paul's religion: of every one who is so a follower of him as he was of Christ. It is true, there is a sort of religion, nay, and it is called Christianity too, which may be practised without any such Imputation, which is generally allowed to be consistent with common sense, --that is, a religion of form, a round of outward duties, performed in a decent, regular manner. You may add orthodoxy thereto, a system of right opinions, yea, and some quantity of heathen morality; and yet not many will pronounce, that "much religion hath made you mad." But if you aim at the religion of the heart, if you talk of "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost," then it will not be long before your sentence is passed, "Thou art beside thyself." 2. And it is no compliment which the men of the world pay you here. They, for once, mean what they say. They not only affirm, but cordially believe, that every man is beside himself who says, "the love of God is shed abroad in" his "heart by the Holy Ghost given unto him;" and that God has enabled him to rejoice in Christ "with joy unspeakable and full of glory." If a man is indeed alive to God, and dead to all things here below; if he continually sees Him that is invisible, and accordingly walks by faith, and not by sight; then they account it a clear case: beyond all dispute, "much religion hath made him mad." 3. It is easy to observe, that the determinate thing which the world account madness is, that utter contempt of all temporal things, and steady pursuit of things eternal; that divine conviction of things not seen; that rejoicing in the favour of God that happy, holy love of God; and that testimony of His Spirit with our spirit, that we are the children of God, --that is, in truth, the whole spirit, and life, and power of the religion of Jesus Christ.

21. To this kind of enthusiasm they are peculiarly exposed, who expect to be directed of God, either in spiritual things or in common life, in what is justly called an extraordinary manner: I mean, by visions or dreams, by strong impressions or sudden impulses on the mind. I do not deny, that God has, of old times, manifested His will in this manner; or, that He can do so now: nay, I believe He does, in some very rare instances. But how frequently do men mistake herein! How are they misled by pride, and a warm imagination, to ascribe such impulses or impressions, dreams or visions, to God, as are utterly unworthy of Him! Now this is all pure enthusiasm; all as wide of religion, as it is of truth and soberness. 22. Perhaps some may ask, "Ought we not then to inquire what is the will of God in all things And ought not His will to be the rule of our practice" Unquestionably it ought. But how is a sober Christian to make this inquiry to know what is the will of God Not by waiting for supernatural dreams; not by expecting God to reveal it in visions; not by looking for any particular impressions or sudden impulses on his mind: no; but by consulting the oracles of God. "To the law and to the testimony!" This is the general method of knowing what is "the holy and acceptable will of God." 23. "But how shall I know what is the will of God, in such and such a particular case The thing proposed is, in itself, of an indifferent nature, and so left undetermined in Scripture." I answer, the Scripture itself gives you a general rule. applicable to all particular cases: "The will of God is our sanctification." It is His will that we should be inwardly and outwardly holy; that we should be good, and do good, in every kind and in the highest degree whereof we are capable. Thus far we tread upon firm ground. This is as clear as the shining of the sun. In order, therefore, to know what is the will of God in a particular case, we have only to apply this general rule.

33. And, first, if enthusiasm be a term, though so frequently used, yet so rarely understood, take you care not to talk of you know not what; not to use the word till you understand it. As in all other points, so likewise in this, learn to think before you speak. First know the meaning of this hard word; and then use it, if need require. 34. But if so few, even among men of education and learning, much more among the common sort of men, understand this dark, ambiguous word, or have any fixed notion of what it means; then, secondly, beware of judging or calling any man an enthusiast, upon common report. This is by no means a sufficient ground for giving any name of reproach to any man; least of all is it a sufficient ground for so black a term of reproach as this. The more evil it contains, the more cautious you should be how you apply it to any one; to bring so heavy an accusation, without full proof, being neither consistent with justice nor mercy. 35. But if enthusiasm be so great an evil, beware you are not entangled therewith yourself. Watch and pray, that you fall not into the temptation. It easily besets those who fear or love God. O beware you do not think of yourself more highly than you ought to think. Do not imagine you have attained that grace of God which you have not attained. You may have much joy; you may have a measure of love; and yet not have living faith. Cry unto God, that He would not suffer you, blind as you are, to go out of the way; that you may never fancy yourself a believer in Christ, till Christ is revealed in you, and till His Spirit witnesses with your spirit that you are a child of God. 36. Beware you are not a fiery, persecuting enthusiast. Do not imagine that God has called you (just contrary to the spirit of Him you style your Master) to destroy men's lives, and not to save them. Never dream of forcing men into the ways of God. Think yourself, and let think. Use no constraint in matters of religion. Even those who are farthest out of the way never compel to come in by any other means than reason, truth, and love.

2. It is of these chiefly I speak in the latter part of this discourse: For these only are properly Christians. But even babes in Christ are in such a sense perfect, or born of God, (an expression taken also in divers senses,) as, First, not to commit sin. If any doubt of this privilege of the sons of God, the question is not to be decided by abstract reasonings, which may be drawn out into an endless length, and leave the point just as it was before. Neither is it to be determined by the experience of this or that particular person. Many may suppose they do not commit sin, when they do; but this proves nothing either way. To the law and to the testimony we appeal. "Let God be true, and every man a liar." [Rom. 3:4] By his Word will we abide, and that alone. Hereby we ought to be judged. 3. Now the Word of God plainly declares, that even those who are justified, who are born again in the lowest sense, "do not continue in sin;" that they cannot "live any longer therein;" (Rom. 6:1, 2;) that they are "planted together in the likeness of the death" of Christ; (Rom. 6:5;) that their "old man is crucified with him," the body of sin being destroyed, so that henceforth they do not serve sin; that being dead with Christ, they are free from sin; (Rom. 6:6, 7;) that they are "dead unto sin, and alive unto God;" (Rom. 6:11;) that "sin hath no more dominion over them," who are "not under the law, but under grace;" but that these, "being free from sin, are become the servants of righteousness." (Rom. 6:14, 18)

3. We expect to be "made perfect in love;" in that love which casts out all painful fear, and all desire but that of glorifying him we love, and of loving and serving him more and more. We look for such an increase in the experimental knowledge and love of God our Saviour as will enable us always "to walk in the light, as he is in the light." We believe the whole mind will be in us, "which was also in Christ Jesus;" that we shall love every man so as to be ready to lay down our life for his sake; so as, by this love, to be freed from anger, and pride, and from every unkind affection. We expect to be "cleansed from all our idols," "from all filthiness," whether "of flesh or spirit;" to be "saved from all our uncleannesses," inward or outward; to be "purified as He is pure." 4. We trust in his promise who cannot lie, that the time will surely come, when, in every word and work, we shall do his blessed will on earth, as it is done in heaven; when all our conversation shall be seasoned with salt, all meet to minister grace to the hearers; when, whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, it shall be done to the glory of God; when all our words and deeds shall be "in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks unto God, even the Father, through him." 5. Now this is the grand device of Satan, to destroy the first work of God in the soul, or at least to hinder its increase, by our expectation of that greater work. It is therefore my present design, First, to point out the several ways whereby he endeavours: this; And, secondly, to observe how we may retort these fiery darts of the wicked one, how we may rise the higher by what he intends for an occasion of our falling.

7. In order to this, redeem the time. Improve the present moment. Buy up every opportunity of growing in grace, or of doing good. Let not the thought of receiving more grace to-morrow, make you negligent of to-day. You have one talent now: If you expect five more, so much the rather improve that you have. And the more you expect to receive hereafter, the more labour for God now. Sufficient for the day is the grace thereof. God is now pouring his benefits upon you: Now approve yourself a faithful steward of the present grace of God. Whatever may be to-morrow, give all diligence to-day, to "add to your faith courage, temperance, patience, brotherly-kindness," and the fear of God, till you attain that pure and perfect love! Let these things be now "in you and abound!" Be not now slothful or unfruitful: "So shall an entrance be ministered into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ!" 8. Lastly: If in time past you have abused this blessed hope of being holy as he is holy, yet do not therefore cast it away. Let the abuse cease, the use remain. Use it now to the more abundant glory of God, and profit of your own soul. In steadfast faith, in calm tranquility of spirit, in full assurance of hope, rejoicing evermore for what God hath done, press ye on unto perfection! Daily growing in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, and going on from strength to strength, in resignation, in patience, in humble thankfulness for what ye have attained, and for what ye shall, run the race set before you, "looking unto Jesus," till, through perfect love, ye enter into his glory!

2. Taking the word in a more particular sense, faith is a divine evidence and conviction not only that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself," but also that Christ loved me, and gave Himself for me. It is by this faith (whether we term it the essence, or rather a property thereof) that we receive Christ; that we receive Him in all His offices, as our Prophet, Priest, and King. It is by this that He is "made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." 3. "But is this the faith of assurance, or faith of adherence" The Scripture mentions no such distinction. The Apostle says, "There is one faith, and one hope of our calling"; one Christian, saving faith; "as there is one Lord," in whom we believe, and "one God and Father of us all." And it is certain, this faith necessarily implies an assurance (which is here only another word for evidence, it being hard to tell the difference between them) that Christ loved me, and gave Himself for me. For "he that believeth" with the true living faith "hath the witness in himself": "the Spirit witnesseth with his spirit that he is a child of God." "Because he is a son, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into his heart, crying, Abba, Father"; giving him an assurance that he is so, and a childlike confidence in Him. But let it be observed, that, in the very nature of the thing, the assurance goes before the confidence. For a man cannot have a childlike confidence in God till he knows he is a child of God. Therefore, confidence, trust, reliance, adherence, or whatever else it be called, is not the first, as some have supposed, but the second, branch or act of faith. 4. It is by this faith we are saved, justified, and sanctified; taking that word in its highest sense. But how are we justified and sanctified by faith This is our third head of inquiry. And this being the main point in question, and a point of no ordinary importance, it will not be improper to five it a more distinct and particular consideration.

2. But "without holiness no man shall see the Lord," shall see the face of God in glory. Of consequence, the new birth is absolutely necessary in order to eternal salvation. Men may indeed flatter themselves (so desperately wicked and so deceitful is the heart of man!) that they may live in their sins till they come to the last gasp, and yet afterwards live with God; and thousands do really believe, that they have found a broad way which leadeth not to destruction. "What danger," say they, "can a woman be in that is so harmless and so virtuous What fear is there that so honest a man, one of so strict morality, should miss of heaven; especially if, over and above all this, they constantly attend on church and sacrament" One of these will ask with all assurance, "What! Shall not I do as well as my neighbours" Yes as well as your unholy neighbours; as well as your neighbours that die in their sins! For you will all drop into the pit together, into the nethermost hell! You will all lie together in the lake of fire; "the lake of fire burning with brimstone." Then, at length, you will see (but God grant you may see it before!) the necessity of holiness in order to glory; and, consequently, of the new birth, since none can be holy, except he be born again.

3. In consequence of the loss of faith and love, follows, Thirdly, loss of joy in the Holy Ghost. For if the loving consciousness of pardon be no more, the joy resulting therefrom cannot remain. If the Spirit does not witness with our spirit that we are the children of God, the joy that flowed from that inward witness must also be at an end. And, in like manner, they who once "rejoiced with joy unspeakable," "in hope of the glory of God," now they are deprived of that "hope full of immortality," are deprived of the joy it occasioned; as also of that which resulted from a consciousness of "the love of God," then "shed abroad in their hearts." For the cause being removed, so is the effect: The fountain being dammed up, those living waters spring no more to refresh the thirsty soul. 4. With loss of faith, and love, and joy there is also joined, Fourthly, the loss of that peace which once passed all understanding. That sweet tranquillity of mind, that composure of spirit, is gone. Painful doubt returns; doubt, whether we ever did, and perhaps whether we ever shall, believe. We begin to doubt, whether we ever did find in our hearts the real testimony of the Spirit; whether we did not rather deceive our own souls, and mistake the voice of nature for the voice of God. Nay, and perhaps, whether we shall ever hear his voice, and find favour in his sight. And these doubts are again joined with servile fear, with that fear which hath torment. We fear the wrath of God, even as before we believed: We fear, lest we should be cast out of his presence; and thence sink again into that fear of death, from which we were before wholly delivered.

10. But it is well to be observed, that the cause of our darkness (whatsoever it be, whether omission or commission, whether inward or outward sin) is not always nigh at hand. Sometimes the sin which occasioned the present distress may lie at a considerable distance. It might be committed days, or weeks, or months before. And that God now withdraws his light and peace on account of what was done so long ago is not (as one might at first imagine) an instance of his severity, but rather a proof of his longsuffering and tender mercy. He waited all this time if haply we would see, acknowledge, and correct what was amiss. And in default of this he at length shows his displeasure, if thus, at last, he may bring us to repentance. (II). 1. Another general cause of this darkness is ignorance; which is likewise of various kinds. If men know not the Scriptures, if they imagine there are passages either in the Old or New Testament which assert, that all believers without exception, must sometimes be in darkness; this ignorance will naturally bring upon them the darkness which they expect. And how common a case has this been among us! How few are there that do not expect it! And no wonder, seeing they are taught to expect it; seeing their guides lead them into this way. Not only the mystic writers of the Romish Church, but many of the most spiritual and experimental in our own, (very few of the last century excepted,) lay it down with all assurance as a plain, unquestionable Scripture doctrine, and cite many texts to prove it.

2. The denying ourselves and the taking up our cross, in the full extent of the expression, is not a thing of small concern: It is not expedient only, as are some of the circumstantials of religion; but it is absolutely, indispensably necessary, either to our becoming or continuing his disciples. It is absolutely necessary, in the very nature of the thing, to our coming after Him and following Him; insomuch that, as far as we do not practise it, we are not his disciples. If we do not continually deny ourselves, we do not learn of Him, but of other masters. If we do not take up our cross daily, we do not come after Him, but after the world, or the prince of the world, or our own fleshly mind. If we are not walking in the way of the cross, we are not following Him; we are not treading in his steps; but going back from, or at least wide of, Him. 3. It is for this reason, that so many Ministers of Christ, in almost every age and nation, particularly since the Reformation of the Church from the innovations and corruptions gradually crept into it, have wrote and spoke so largely on this important duty, both in their public discourses and private exhortations. This induced them to disperse abroad many tracts upon the subject; and some in our own nation. They knew both from the oracles of God, and from the testimony of their own experience, how impossible it was not to deny our Master, unless we will deny ourselves; and how vainly we attempt to follow Him that was crucified, unless we take up our cross daily.

7. Brethren, can we be either wise or faithful stewards unless we thus manage our Lord's goods We cannot, as not only the oracles of God, but our own conscience beareth witness. Then why should we delay Why should we confer any longer with flesh and blood, or men of the world Our kingdom, our wisdom is not of this world: Heathen custom is nothing to us. We follow no men any farther than they are followers of Christ. Hear ye him. Yea, to-day, while it is called to-day, hear and obey his voice! At this hour, and from this hour, do his will: Fulfil his word, in this and in all things! I entreat you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, act up to the dignity of your calling! No more sloth! Whatsoever your hand findeth to do, do it with your might! No more waste! Cut off every expense which fashion, caprice, or flesh and blood demand! No more covetousness! But employ whatever God has entrusted you with, in doing good, all possible good, in every possible kind and degree to the household of faith, to all men! This is no small part of "the wisdom of the just." Give all ye have, as well as all ye are, a spiritual sacrifice to Him who withheld not from you his Son, his only Son: So "laying up in store for yourselves a good foundation against the time to come, that ye may attain eternal life!"

3. Not that this will suffice: Everyone engaging herein, should be more than a harmless man. He should be a man of faith; having at least, such a degree of that "evidence of things not seen," as to "aim not at the things that are seen, which are temporal, but at those that are not seen, which are eternal;" such a faith as produces a steady fear of God, with a lasting resolution, by his grace, to abstain from all that he has forbidden, and to do all that he has commanded. He will more especially need that particular branch of faith, -- confidence in God. It is this faith which "removes mountains;" which "quenches the violence of fire;" which breaks through all opposition; and enables one to stand against and "chase a thousand," knowing in whom his strength lies, and, even when he has "the sentence of death in himself, trusting in Him who raiseth the dead." 4. He that has faith and confidence in God, will, of consequence, be a man of courage. And such it is highly needful every man should be, who engages in this undertaking: For many things will occur in the prosecution thereof, which are terrible to nature; indeed, so terrible, that all who "confer with flesh and blood" will be afraid to encounter them. Here, therefore, true courage has its proper place, and is necessary in the highest degree. And this, faith only can supply. A believer can say, I fear no denial; no danger I fear; Nor start from the trial; --For Jesus is near.

12. And could you take view of all those upon earth who are now sanctified, you would find no one of these had been sanctified till after he was called. He was first called, not only with an outward call, by the word and the messengers of God, but likewise with an inward call, by his Spirit applying his word, enabling him to believe in the only-begotten Son of God, and bearing testimony with his spirit that he was a child of God. And it was by this very means they were all sanctified. It was by a sense of the love of God shed abroad in his heart, that everyone of them was enabled to love God. Loving God, he loved his neighbor as himself, and had power to walk in all his commandments blameless. This is a rule which admits of no exception. God calls a sinner his own, that is, justifies him, before he sanctifies. And by this very thing, the consciousness of his favour, he works in him that grateful, filial affection, from which spring every good temper, and word, and work. 13. And who are they that are thus called of God, but those whom he had before predestinated, or decreed, to "conform to the image of his Son" This decree (still speaking after the manner of men) precedes every man's calling: Every believer was predestinated before he was called. For God calls none, but "according to the counsel of his will," according to this proqesis, or plan of acting, which he had laid down before the foundation of the world.

The Mystery of Iniquity "The mystery of iniquity doth already work." 2 Thess. 2:7. 1. Without inquiring how far these words refer to any particular event in the Christian Church, I would at present take occasion from them to consider that important question, -- In what manner the mystery of iniquity hath wrought among us till it hath well-nigh covered the whole earth. 2. It is certain that "God made man upright;" perfectly holy and perfectly happy: But by rebelling against God, he destroyed himself, lost the favour and the image of God, and entailed sin, with its attendant, pain, on himself and all his posterity. Yet his merciful Creator did not leave him in this helpless, hopeless state: He immediately appointed his Son, his well-beloved Son, "who is the brightness of his glory, the express image of his person," to be the Saviour of men; "the propitiation for the sins of the whole world;" the great Physician who, by his almighty Spirit, should heal the sickness of their souls, and restore them not only to the favour, but to "the image of God wherein they were created." 3. This great mystery of godliness began to work from the very time of the original promise. Accordingly, the Lamb being, in the purpose of God, "slain from the beginning of the world," from the same period his sanctifying Spirit began to renew the souls of men. We have an undeniable instance of this in Abel, who "obtained a testimony" from God "that he was righteous." (Heb. 11:4.) And from that very time all that were partakers of the same faith were partakers of the same salvation; were not only re-instated in the favour, but likewise restored to the image, of God. 4. But how exceeding small was the number of these even from the earliest ages! No sooner did "the sons of men multiply upon the face of the earth," than God, looking down from heaven, "saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth;" so great that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil," only evil, and that "continually." (Gen. 6:1-5.) And so it remained, without any intermission, till God executed that terrible sentence, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth." (Gen. 6:7.)

24. And if the state of the Church in the very first century was so bad, we cannot suppose it was any better in the second. Undoubtedly it grew worse and worse. Tertullian, one of the most eminent Christians of that age, has given us an account of it in various parts of his writings, whence we learn that real, internal religion was hardly found; nay, that not only the tempers of the Christians were exactly the same with those of their heathen neighbours, (pride, passion, love of the world reigning alike in both,) but their lives and manners also. The bearing a faithful testimony against the general corruption of Christians, seems to have raised the outcry against Montanus; and against Tertullian himself, when he was convinced that the testimony of Montanus was true. As to the heresies fathered upon Montanus, it is not easy to find what they were. I believe his grand heresy was, the maintaining that "without" inward and outward "holiness no man shall see the Lord." 25. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in every respect an unexceptionable witness, who flourished about the middle of the third century, has left us abundance of letters, in which he gives a large and particular account of the state of religion in his time. In reading this, one would be apt to imagine, he was reading an account of the present century: So totally void of true religion were the generality both of the laity and clergy, so immersed in ambition, envy, covetousness, luxury, and all other vices, that the Christians of Africa were then exactly the same as the Christians of England are now. 26. It is true, that during this whole period, during the first three centuries, there were intermixed longer or shorter seasons wherein true Christianity revived. In those seasons the justice and mercy of God let loose the Heathens upon the Christians. Many of these were then called to resist unto blood. And "the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church." The apostolic spirit returned; and many "counted not their lives dear unto themselves, so they might finish their course with joy." Many others were reduced to happy poverty; and being stripped of what they had loved too well, they "remembered from whence they were fallen, and repented, and did their first works."

7. And God created man, not only in his natural, but likewise in his own moral, image. He created him not only "in knowledge," but also in righteousness and true holiness. As his understanding was without blemish, perfect in its kind; so were all his affections. They were all set right, and duly exercised on their proper objects. And as a free agent, he steadily chose whatever was good, according to the direction of his understanding. In so doing, he was unspeakably happy; dwelling in God, and God in him; having an uninterrupted fellowship with the Father and the Son, through the eternal Spirit; and the continual testimony of his conscience, that all his ways were good and acceptable to God. 8. Yet his liberty (as was observed before) necessarily included a power of choosing or refusing either good or evil. Indeed it has been doubted whether man could then choose evil, knowing it to be such. But it cannot be doubted, he might mistake evil for good. He was not infallible; therefore not impeccable. And this unravels the whole difficulty of the grand question, Unde malum "How came evil into the world" It came from "Lucifer, son of the morning." It was the work of the devil. "For the devil," saith the Apostle, "sinneth from the beginning;" that is, was the first sinner in the universe, the author of sin, the first being who, by the abuse of his liberty, introduced evil into the creation. He, -- Of the first, If not the first archangel, was self-tempted to think too highly of himself. He freely yielded to the temptation; and gave way, first to pride, then to self-will. He said, "I will sit upon the sides of the north: I will be like the Most High." He did not fall alone, but soon drew after him a third part of the stars of heaven; in consequence of which they lost their glory and happiness, and were driven from their former habitation.

1. It must be allowed, that there is a considerable difficulty in performing this in a right manner: Although, at the same time, it is far less difficult to some than it is to others. Some there are who are particularly qualified for it, whether by nature, or practice, or grace. They are not encumbered either with evil shame, or that sore burden, the fear of man: They are both ready to undertake this labour of love, and skilful in performing it. To these, therefore, it is little or no cross; nay, they have a kind of relish for it, and a satisfaction therein, over and above that which arises from a consciousness of having done their duty. But be it a cross to us, greater or less, we know that hereunto we are called. And be the difficulty ever so great to us, we know in whom we have trusted; and that he will surely fulfil his word, "As thy day, so shall thy strength be." 2. In what manner, then, shall we reprove our brother, in order that our reproof may be most effectual Let us first of all take care that whatever we do may be done in "the spirit of love;" in the spirit of tender good-will to our neighbour; as for one who is the son of our common Father, and one for whom Christ died, that he might be a partaker of salvation. Then, by the grace of God, love will beget love. The affection of the speaker will spread to the heart of the hearer; and you will find, in due time, that your labour hath not been in vain in the Lord.

3. A Second eminent sign of those times, the times of the coming of the Messiah, is given us in the third chapter of the prophecy of Malachi: "Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare my way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple." (Mal. 3:1). How manifestly was this fulfilled, first, by the coming of John the Baptist; and then by our blessed Lord himself, "coming suddenly to his temple!" And what sign could be clearer to those that impartially considered the words of the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 40:3:) "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight!" 4. But yet clearer signs than these, (if any could be clearer,) were the mighty works that he wrought. Accordingly, he himself declares, "The works which I do, they testify of me." And to these he explicitly appeals in his answer to the question of John the Baptist; (not proposed, as some have strangely imagined, from any doubt which he had himself; but from a desire of confirming his disciples, who might possibly waver, when their Master was taken from their head: "Art thou he that should come," the Messiah "Or look we for another" No bare verbal answer could have been so convincing, as what they saw with their own eyes. Jesus therefore referred them to this testimony: "He answered and said unto them, Go and show John the things which ye hear and see; the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached unto them." (Matt. 11:4, 5.)

22. Let us next consider, what method has the wisdom of God taken, for these five-and-forty years, when thousands of the people that once ran well, one after another, "drew back to perdition" Why, as fast as any of the poor were overwhelmed with worldly care, so that the seed they had received became unfruitful; and as fast as any of the rich drew back unto perdition, by giving way to the love of the world, to foolish and hurtful desires, or to any other of those innumerable temptations, which are inseparable from riches; God has constantly, from time to time, raised up men, endued with the spirit which they had lost: Yea, and generally this change has been made with considerable advantage: For the last were, not only (for the most part) more numerous than the first, but more watchful, profiting by their example; more spiritual, more heavenly-minded, more zealous, more alive to God, and more dead to all things here below. 23. And, blessed be God, we see he is now doing the same thing in various parts of the kingdom. In the room of those that have fallen from their steadfastness, or are falling at this day, he is continually raising up out of the stones other children to Abraham. This he does at one or another place, according to his own will; pouring out his quickening Spirit on this or another people, just as it pleaseth him. He is raising up those of every age and degree, young men and maidens, old men and children, to be "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; to show forth His praise, who has called them out of darkness into his marvellous light." And we have no reason to doubt, but he will continue so to do, till the great promise is fulfilled; till "the earth is filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea; till all Israel is saved, and the fullness of the Gentiles is come in."

II. 1. But are we not better acquainted with his works of providence, than with his works of creation It is one of the first principles of religion, that his kingdom ruleth over all: so that we may say with confidence, "O Lord our Governor, how excellent is thy name over all the earth!" It is a childish conceit, to suppose chance governs the world, or has any part in the government of it: No, not even in those things that, to the vulgar eye, appear to be perfectly casual. "The lot is cast to the lap; but the disposal thereof is from the Lord." Our blessed Master himself has put this matter beyond all possible doubt: "Not a sparrow," saith he, "falleth to the ground without the will of your Father which is in heaven: Yea," (to express the thing more strongly still,) "even the very hairs of you head are all numbered." 2. But although we are well apprized of this general truth, that all things are governed by the providence of God; (the very language of the heathen orator, Deorum moderamine cuncta geri;) yet how amazingly little do we know of the particulars contained under this general! How little do we understand of his providential dealing, either with regard to nations, or families, or individuals! There are heights and depths in all these which our understanding can in no wise fathom. We can comprehend but a small part of his ways now; the rest we shall know hereafter. 3. Even with regard to entire nations, how little do we comprehend of God's providential dealings with them! what innumerable nations in the eastern world once flourished, to the terror of all around them, and are now swept away from the face of the earth; and their memorial is perished with them! Nor has the case been otherwise in the west. In Europe also we read of many large and powerful kingdoms, of which the names only are left: The people are vanished away, and are as though they had never been. But why it has pleased the almighty Governor of the world to sweep them away with the besom of destruction we cannot tell; those who succeeded them being, many times, little better than themselves.

6. And although none but their great Creator is omnipresent; although none beside him can ask, "Do not I fill heaven and earth" yet, undoubtedly, he has given an immense sphere of action (though not unbounded) to created spirits. "The prince of the kingdom of Persia," (mentioned Dan. 10:13,) though probably an evil angel, seems to have had a sphere of action, both of knowledge and power, as extensive as that vast empire; and the same, if not greater, we may reasonably ascribe to the good angel whom he withstood for one-and-twenty days. 7. The angels of God have great power, in particular, over the human body; power either to cause or remove pain and diseases, either to kill or to heal. They perfectly well understand whereof we are made; they know all the springs of this curious machine, and can, doubtless, by God's permission, touch any of them, so as either to stop or restore its motion. Of this power, even in an evil angel, we have a clear instance in the case of Job; whom he "smote with sore boils" all over, "from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot." And in that instant, undoubtedly, he would have killed him, if God had not saved his life. And, on the other hand, of the power of angels to heal, we have a remarkable instance in the case of Daniel. There remained no "strength in me," said the prophet; "neither was there breath in me." "Then one came and touched me, and said, Peace be unto thee: Be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened." (Dan. 10:17, &c.) On the other hand, when they are commissioned from above, may they not put a period to human life There is nothing improbable in what Dr. Parnell supposes the angel to say to the hermit, concerning the death of the child: -- To all but thee, in fits he seem'd to go: And 'twas my ministry to deal the blow. From this great truth, the heathen poets probably derived their imagination, that Iris used to be sent down from heaven to discharge souls out of their bodies. And perhaps the sudden death of many of the children of God may be owing to the ministry of an angel.

2. And let it not be thought, that the consideration of these terrible truths is proper only for enormous sinners. How is this supposition consistent with what our Lord speaks to those who were then, doubtless, the holiest men upon earth "When innumerable multitudes were gathered together, he said to his disciples" (the Apostles) "first of all, I say unto you, my friends, Fear not them that can kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I say unto you, Fear him, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." (Luke 12:1-5.) Yea, fear him under this very notion, -- of having power to cast into hell: That is, in effect, fear lest he should cast you into the place of torment. And this very fear, even in the children of God, is one excellent means of preserving them from it. 3. It behoves, therefore not only the outcasts of men, but even you, his friends, you that fear and love God, deeply to consider what is revealed in the oracles of God concerning the future state of punishment. How widely distant is this from the most elaborate accounts which are given by the heathen authors! Their accounts are (in many particulars at least) childish, fanciful, and self-inconsistent. So that it is no wonder they did not believe themselves, but only related the tales of the vulgar. So Virgil strongly intimates, when, after the laboured account he had given of the shades beneath, he sends him that had related it out at the ivory gate, through which (as he tells us) only dreams pass; thereby giving us to know that all the preceding account is no more than a dream. This he only insinuates; but his brother poet, Juvenal, speaks out flat and plain, -- Esse aliquos manes, et subterranea regna, Nec pueri credunt, nisi qui nondum aere lavantur: "Even our children do not believe a word of the tales concerning another world." 4. Here, on the contrary, all is worthy of God, the Creator, the Governor of mankind. All is awful and solemn; suitable to his wisdom and justice by whom "Tophet was ordained of old;" although originally prepared, not for the children of men, but "for the devil and his angels."

Spiritual Worship "This is the true God, and eternal life." 1 John 5:20. 1. In this Epistle St. John speaks not to any particular Church, but to all the Christians of that age; although more especially to them among whom he then resided. And in them he speaks to the whole Christian Church in all succeeding ages. 2. In this letter, or rather tract, (for he was present with those to whom it was more immediately directed, probably being not able to preach to them any longer, because of his extreme old age,) he does not treat directly of faith, which St. Paul had done; neither of inward and outward holiness, concerning which both St. Paul, St. James, and St. Peter, had spoken; but of the foundation of all, -- the happy and holy communion which the faithful have with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 3. In the preface he describes the authority by which he wrote and spoke, (1 John 1:1-4,) and expressly points out the design of his present writing. To the preface exactly answers the conclusion of the Epistle, more largely explaining the same design, and recapitulating the marks of our communion with God, by, "we know," thrice repeated. (1 John 5:18-20.) 4. The tract itself treats, First, severally, of communion with the Father; (1 John 1:5-10;) of communion with the Son; (1 John 2 and 3;) of communion with the Spirit. (1 John 4.) Secondly, conjointly, of the testimony of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; on which faith in Christ, the being born of God, love to God and his children, the keeping his commandments, and victory over the world, are founded. (1 John 5:1-12.)

2. The thing directly intended is not, that he is the resurrection; although this also is true, according to his own declaration, "I am the resurrection and the life:" Agreeable to which are St. Paul's words: "As in Adam all died, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." So that we may well say, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who... hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away." 3. But waiving what he will be hereafter, we are here called to consider what he is now. He is now the life of everything that lives, in any kind or degree. He is the Source of the lowest species of life, that of vegetables, as being the Source of all the motion on which vegetation depends. He is the Fountain of the life of animals; the Power by which the heart beats, and the circulating juices flow. He is the Fountain of all the life which man possesses in common with other animals. And if we distinguish the rational from the animal life, he is the Source of this also. 4. But how infinitely short does all this fall of the life which is here directly intended, and of which the Apostle speaks so explicitly in the preceding verses! (1 John 5:11, 12:) "This is the testimony, that God hath given us eternal life; and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life," -- the eternal life here spoken of, -- "and he that hath not the Son" of God "hath not" this "life." As if he had said, "This is the sum of the testimony which God hath testified of his Son, that God hath given us, not only a title to, but the real beginning of, eternal life: And this life is purchased by, and treasured up in, his Son; who has all the springs and the fullness of it in himself, to communicate to his body, the Church."

14. A plain consequence of these observations is, (what some may esteem a paradox,) that dissipation, in the full, general meaning of the word, is the very same thing with ungodliness. The name is new; but the thing is, undoubtedly almost as old as the creation. And this is, at present, the peculiar glory of England, wherein it is not equalled by any nation under heaven. We therefore speak an unquestionable truth when we say, there is not on the face of the earth another nation (at least, that we ever heard of) so perfectly dissipated and ungodly; not only so totally "without God in the world," but so openly setting him at defiance. There never was an age that we read of in history, since Julius Caesar, since Noah, since Adam, wherein dissipation or ungodliness did so generally prevail, both among high and low, rich and poor. 15. But still, blessed be God! -- All are not lost: There be who faith Prefer, and piety to God! There are some, I trust more than seven thousand, yea, or ten times that number, in England, who have not yet bowed either their knee or their heart to the god of this world; who, cleaving close to the God of heaven, are not borne away by the flood, by the general, the almost universal, torrent of dissipation or ungodliness. They are not of the mind of gentle Crispus, -- Qui nunquam direxit brachia contra Torrentem, -- "who never attempted to swim against the stream." They dare swim against the stream. Each of them can truly say, Nec me, qui caetera, vincit Impetus, et rapido contrarius evehor orbi. [The following is Addison's translation of this quotation from Ovid: -- "I steer against their motions; nor am I Borne back by all the current of the sky." -- Edit.] If they cannot turn the tide back, they can at least bear an open testimony against it. They are therefore free from the blood of their ungodly countrymen: It must be upon their own head.

11. We may easily hurt our own souls, by sliding into a close attachment to any of them that know not God. This is the friendship which is "enmity with God:" We cannot be too jealous over ourselves, lest we fall into this deadly snare; lest we contract, or ever we are aware, a love of complacence or delight in them. Then only do we tread upon sure ground, when we can say with the Psalmist, "All my delight is in the saints that are upon earth, and in such as excel in virtue." We should have no needless conversations with them. It is our duty and our wisdom to be no oftener and no longer with them than is strictly necessary. And during the whole time we have need to remember and follow the example of him that said, "I kept my mouth as it were with a bridle while the ungodly was in my sight." We should enter into no sort of connexion with them, farther than is absolutely necessary. When Jehoshaphat forgot this, and formed a connexion with Ahab, what was the consequence He first lost his substance: "The ships" they sent out "were broken at Ezion-geber." And when he was not content with this warning, as well as that of the prophet Micaiah, but would go up with him to Ramoth-Gilead, he was on the point of losing his life.

12. This premised, in order to throw what light I can upon this interesting question, I will simply relate what I have seen myself in the course of many years. Four or five and forty years ago, when I had no distinct views of what the Apostle meant by exhorting us to "leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ, and go on to perfection," two or three persons in London, whom I knew to be truly sincere, desired to give me an account of their experience. It appeared exceeding strange, being different from any that I had heard before; but exactly similar to the preceding account of entire sanctification. The next year, two or three more persons at Bristol, and two or three in Kingswood, coming to me severally, gave me exactly the same account of their experience. A few years after, I desired all those in London who made the same profession, to come to me all together at the Foundery, that I might be thoroughly satisfied. I desired that man of God, Thomas Walsh, to give us the meeting there. When we met, first one of us, and the the other, asked them the most searching questions we could devise. They answered every one without hesitation, and with the utmost simplicity, so that we were fully persuaded, they did not deceive themselves. In the years 1759, 1760, 1761, and 1762, their numbers multiplied exceedingly, not only in London and Bristol, but in various parts of Ireland as well as England. Not trusting to the testimony of others, I carefully examined most of these myself; and in London alone I found six hundred and fifty-two members of our society who were exceedingly clear in their experience, and of whose testimony I could see no reason to doubt. I believe no year has passed since that time wherein God has not wrought the same work in many others; but sometimes in one part of England or Ireland, sometimes in another; -- as "the wind bloweth where it listeth;" -- and every one of these (after the most careful inquiry, I have not found one exception either in Great Britain or Ireland) has declared that his deliverance from sin was instantaneous; that the change was wrought in a moment.

II. 1. The next point we have to consider is what is implied in a man's losing his own soul. But here we draw a deeper scene, and have need of a more steady attention. For it is easy to sum up all that is implied in a man's "gaining the whole world." but it is not easy to understand all that is implied in his "losing his own soul." Indeed none can fully conceive this, until he has passed through time into eternity. 2. The first thing which it undeniably implies is, the losing all the present pleasures of religion; all those which it affords to truly religious men, even in the present life. "If there be any consolation Christ; if any comfort of love," -- in the love of God, and of all mankind; if any "joy in the Holy Ghost;" if there be a peace of God, -- a peace that passeth all understanding; if there be any rejoicing in the testimony of a good conscience toward God; it is manifest, all this is totally lost by the man that loses his own soul. 3. But the present life will soon be at an end: We know it passes away like a shadow. The hour is at hand, when the spirit will be summoned to return to God that gave it. In that awful moment, Leaving the old, both worlds at once they view, Who stand upon the threshold of the new.

11. But he makes a Third supposition, -- That he shall certainly live forty, or fifty, or threescore years. Do you depend upon this On living threescore years Who told you that you should It is no other than the enemy of God and man: It is the murderer of souls. Believe him not; he was a liar from the beginning; from the beginning of his rebellion against God. He is eminently a liar in this: For he would not give you life, if he could. Would God permit, he would make sure work, and just now hurry you to his own place. And he cannot give you life, if he would: The breath of man is not in his hands. He is not the disposer of life and death: That power belongs to the Most High. It is possible indeed, God may, on some occasions, permit him to inflict death. I do not know but it was an evil angel who smote an hundred fourscore and five thousand Assyrians in one night: And the fine lines of our poet are as applicable to an evil as to a good spirit: -- So when an angel, by divine command, Hurls death and terror over a guilty land; He, pleased the Almighty's order to perform, Rides in the whirlwind, and directs the storm. But though Satan may sometimes inflict death, I know not that he could ever give life. It was one of his most faithful servants that shrieked out some years ago, "A week's life! A week's life! Thirty thousand pounds for a week's life!" But he could not purchase a day's life. That night God required his soul of him! And how soon may he require it of you Are you sure of living threescore years Are you sure of living one year, one month, one week, one day O make haste to live! Surely the man that may die tonight should live today. 12. So absurd are all the suppositions made by him who gains the world and loses his soul. But let us for a moment imagine, that wickedness is happiness; and that he shall certainly live threescore years; and still I would ask, What is he profited, if he gain the whole world for threescore years, and then lose his soul eternally

3. But who believes that Who receives it as the truth of God Who is deeply convinced of it Who preaches this Great is the company of preachers at this day, regular and irregular; but who of them all openly and explicitly, preaches this strange doctrine It is the keen observation of a great man, "The pulpit is a fearful preacher's strong-hold." But who even in his strong-hold, has the courage to declare so unfashionable a truth I do not remember that in threescore years I have heard one sermon preached upon this subject. And what author, within the same term, has declared it from the press at least, in the English tongue I do not know one. I have neither seen nor heard of any such author. I have seen two or three who just touch upon it; but none that treats of it professedly. I have myself frequently touched upon it in preaching, and twice in what I have published to the world: Once in explaining our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, and once in the discourse on the "Mammon of unrighteousness;" but I have never yet either published or preached any sermon expressly upon the subject. It is high time I should;--that I should at length speak as strongly and explicitly as I can, in order to leave a full and clear testimony behind me, whenever it pleases God to call me hence. 4. O that God would give me to speak right and forcible words; and you to receive them in honest and humble hearts! Let it not be said, "They sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words; but they will not do them. Thou art unto them as one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument; for they hear thy words, but they do them not!" O that ye may "not be forgetful hearers, but doers of the word," that ye may be "blessed in your deed!" In this hope I shall endeavour, I. To explain the Apostle's words. And, II. To apply them.

9. O ye Methodists, hear the word of the Lord! I have a message from God to all men; but to you above all. For above forty years I have been a servant to you and to your fathers. And I have not been as a reed shaken with the wind: I have not varied in my testimony. I have testified to you the very same thing from the first day even until now. But "who hath believed our report" I fear, not many rich: I fear there is need to apply to some of you those terrible words of the Apostle: "Go to now, ye rich men! weep and howl for the miseries which shall come upon you. Your gold and silver is cankered, and the rust of them shall witness against you and shall eat your flesh, as it were fire." Certainly it will, unless ye both save all you can and give all you can. But who of you hath considered this since you first heard the will of the Lord concerning it Who is now determined to consider and practise it By the grace of God begin today! 10. O ye lovers of money, hear the word of the Lord! Suppose ye that money, though multiplied as the sand of the sea, can give happiness Then you are "given up to a strong delusion, to believe a lie;" -- a palpable lie, confuted daily by a thousand experiments. Open your eyes! Look all around you! Are the richest men the happiest Have those the largest share of content who have the largest possessions Is not the very reverse true Is it not a common observation, that the richest of men are, in general, the most discontented, the most miserable Had not the far greater part of them more content when they had less money Look into your breasts. If you are increased in goods, are you proportionably increased in happiness You have more substance; but have you more content You know that in seeking happiness from riches, you are only striving to drink out of empty cups. And let them be painted and gilded ever so finely, they are empty still.

21. You answer, "Why, universal custom is against me; and I know not how to stem the mighty torrent." Not only the profane, but the religious world, run violently the other way. Look into, I do not say, the theatres, but the churches, nay, and the meetings of every denomination; (except a few old-fashioned Quakers, or the people called Moravians;) look into the congregations, in London or elsewhere, of those that are styled Gospel Ministers; look into Northampton-Chapel; yea, into the Tabernacle, or the chapel in Tottenham-Court Road; nay, look into the chapel in West-Street, or that in the City-Road; look at the very people that sit under the pulpit, or by the side of it; and are not those that can afford it, (I can hardly refrain from doing them the honour of naming their names,) as fashionably adorned, as those of the same rank in other places 22. This is a melancholy truth. I am ashamed of it: But I know not how to help it. I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that it is not my fault! The trumpet has not "given an uncertain sound," for near fifty years last past. O God! thou knowest I have borne a clear and faithful testimony. In print, in preaching, in meeting the society, I have not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God. I am therefore clear of the blood of those that will not hear. It lies upon their own head. 23. I warn you once more, in the name, and in the presence of God, that the number of those that rebel against God is no excuse for their rebellion. He hath expressly told us, "Thou shalt not follow the multitude to do evil." It was said of a great, good man, he Fear'd not, had Heaven decreed it, to have stood Adverse against a world, and singly good. Who of you desire to share in that glorious character to stand adverse against a world If millions condemn you, it will be enough that you are acquitted by God and your own conscience.

6. But who is it, concerning whom our blessed Lord gives this glorious testimony Who is this Nathanael, of whom so remarkable an account is given in the latter part of the chapter before us [John 1] Is it not strange that he is not mentioned again in any part of the New Testament He is not mentioned again under this name; but probably he had another, whereby he was more commonly called. It was generally believed by the ancients, that he is the same person who is elsewhere termed Bartholomew; one of our Lord's Apostles, and one that, in the enumeration of them, both by St. Matthew and St. Mark, is placed immediately after St. Philip, who first brought him to his Master. It is very probable, that his proper name was Nathanael, -- a name common among the Jews; and that his other name, Bartholomew, meaning only the son of Ptolemy, was derived from his father, a custom which was then exceeding common among the Jews, as well as the Heathens. 7. By what little is said of him in the context he appears to have been a man of an excellent spirit; not hasty of belief, and yet open to conviction, and willing to receive the truth, from whencesoever it came. So we read, (John 1:45,) "Philip findeth Nathanael," (probably by what we term accident,) "and saith unto him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth." "Nathanael saith unto him, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth" Has Moses spoke, or did the Prophets write, of any prophet to come from thence "Philip saith unto him, Come and see;" and thou wilt soon be able to judge for thyself. Nathanael took his advice, without staying to confer with flesh and blood. "Jesus saw Nathanael coming, and saith, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" "Nathanael saith," doubtless with surprise enough, "Whence knowest thou me" Jesus saith, Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee." "Nathanael answered and said unto him," -- so soon was all prejudice gone! -- "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel." But what is implied in our Lord's character of him "In whom is no guile." It may include all that is contained in that advice, --

Still let thy heart be true to God, Thy words to it, thy actions to them both. I. 1. We may, First, observe what is implied in having our hearts true to God. Does this imply any less than is included in that gracious command, "My son, give me thy heart" Then only is our heart true to God, when we give it to him. We give him our heart, in the lowest degree, when we seek our happiness in him; when we do not seek it in gratifying "the desire of the flesh," -- in any of the pleasures of sense; nor in gratifying "the desire of the eye," -- in any of the pleasures of the imagination, arising from grand, or new, or beautiful objects, whether of nature or art; neither in "the pride of life," -- in "the honour that cometh of men," in being beloved, esteemed, and applauded by them; no, nor yet in what some term, with equal impudence and ignorance, the main chance, the "laying up treasures on earth." When we seek happiness in none of these, but in God alone, then we, in some sense give him our heart. 2. But in a more proper sense, we give God our heart, when we not only seek but find happiness in him. This happiness undoubtedly begins, when we begin to know him by the teaching of his own Spirit; when it pleases the Father to reveal his Son in our hearts, so that we can humbly say, "My Lord and my God;" and when the Son is pleased to reveal his Father in us, by "the Spirit of adoption, crying in our hearts, Abba Father," and "bearing his "testimony to our spirits, that we are the children of God." Then it is that "the love of God also is shed abroad in our hearts." And according to the degree of our love, is the degree of our happiness.

5. If anyone desires to know exactly what quantity of sleep his own constitution requires, he may very easily make the experiment which I made about sixty years ago: I then waked every night about twelve or one, and lay awake for some time. I readily concluded that this arose from my lying longer in bed than nature required. To be satisfied, I procured an alarum, which waked me the next morning at seven; (near an hour earlier than I rose the day before,) yet I lay awake again at night. The second morning I rose at six; but, notwithstanding this, I lay awake the second night. The third morning I rose at five; but, nevertheless, I lay awake the third night. The fourth morning I rose at four; (as, by the grace of God, I have done ever since;) and I lay awake no more. And I do not now lie awake (taking the year round) a quarter of an hour together in a month. By the same experiment, rising earlier and earlier every morning, may anyone find how much sleep he really wants. II. 1. "But why should anyone be at so much pains What need is there of being so scrupulous Why should we make ourselves so particular What harm is there in doing as our neighbours do -- suppose in lying from ten till six or seven in summer, and till eight or nine in winter" 2. If you would consider this question fairly, you will need a good deal of candour and impartiality; as what I am about to say will probably be quite new; different from anything you ever heard in your life; different from the judgment, at least from the example, of your parents and your nearest relations; nay, and perhaps of the most religious persons you ever were acquainted with. Lift up, therefore, your heart to the Spirit of truth, and beg of him to shine upon it, that without respecting any man's person, you may see and follow the truth as it in Jesus.

7. From the whole we may draw this general conclusion. That standing revelation is the best means of rational conviction; far preferable to any of those extraordinary means which some imagine would be more effectual. It is therefore our wisdom to avail ourselves of this; to make full use of it; so that it may be a lantern to our feet, and a light in all our paths. Let us take care that our whole heart and life be conformable thereto; that it be the constant rule of all our tempers, all our words, and all our actions. So shall we preserve in all things the testimony of a good conscience toward God; and when our course is finished, we too shall be "carried by angels into Abraham's bosom." Birmingham, March 25, 1788.

13. Thirdly. This doctrine tends to destroy the comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity. This is evident as to all those who believe themselves to be reprobated, or who only suspect or fear it. All the great and precious promises are lost to them; they afford them no ray of comfort: For they are not the elect of God; therefore they have neither lot nor portion in them. This is an effectual bar to their finding any comfort or happiness, even in that religion whose ways are designed to be "ways of pleasantness, and all her paths peace." 14. And as to you who believe yourselves the elect of God, what is your happiness I hope, not a notion, a speculative belief, a bare opinion of any kind; but a feeling possession of God in your heart, wrought in you by the Holy Ghost, or, the witness of God's Spirit with your spirit that you are a child of God. This, otherwise termed "the full assurance of faith, is the true ground of a Christian's happiness. And it does indeed imply a full assurance that all your past sins are forgiven, and that you are now a child of God. But it does not necessarily imply a full assurance of our future perseverance. I do not say this is never joined to it, but that it is not necessarily implied therein; for many have the one who have not the other.

15. Now, this witness of the Spirit experience shows to be much obstructed by this doctrine; and not only in those who, Believing themselves reprobated, by this belief thrust it far from them, but even in them that have tasted of that good gift, who yet have soon lost it again, and fallen back into doubts, and fears, and darkness, -- horrible darkness, that might be felt! And I appeal to any of you who hold this doctrine, to say, between God and your own hearts, whether you have not often a return of doubts and fears concerning your election or perseverance If you ask, "Who has not" I answer, Very few of those that hold this doctrine; but many, very many, of those that hold it not, in all parts of the earth; -- many of these have enjoyed the uninterrupted witness of his Spirit, the continual light of his countenance, from the moment wherein they first believed, for many months or years, to this day. 16. That assurance of faith which these enjoy excludes all doubt and fear, It excludes all kinds of doubt and fear concerning their future perseverance; though it is not properly, as was said before, an assurance of what is future, but only of what now is. And this needs not for its support a speculative belief, that whoever is once ordained to life must live; for it is wrought from hour to hour, by the mighty power of God, "by the Holy Ghost which is given unto them." And therefore that doctrine is not of God, because it tends to obstruct, if not destroy, this great work of the Holy Ghost, whence flows the chief comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity. 17. Again: How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offense or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings! How peculiarly uncomfortable must it be to those who have put on Christ! to those who, being filled with bowels of mercy, tenderness, and compassion, could even "wish themselves accursed for their brethren's sake!"

22. If you ask, "Why then are not all men saved" the whole law and the testimony answer, First, Not because of any decree of God; not because it is his pleasure they should die; for, As I live, saith the Lord God," I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth." (Ezek. 18:3, 32.) Whatever be the cause of their perishing, it cannot be his will, if the oracles of God are true; for they declare, "He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance;" (2 Pet. 3:9;) "He willeth that all men should be saved." And they, Secondly, declare what is the cause why all men are not saved, namely, that they will not be saved: So our Lord expressly, "Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life." (John 5:40.) "The power of the Lord is present to heal" them, but they will not be healed. "They reject the counsel," the merciful counsel, "of God against themselves," as did their stiff-necked forefathers. And therefore are they without excuse; because God would save them, but they will not be saved: This is the condemnation, "How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not!" (Matt. 23:37.) 23. Thus manifestly does this doctrine tend to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation, by making it contradict itself; by giving such an interpretation of some texts, as flatly contradicts all the other texts, and indeed the whole scope and tenor of Scripture; -- an abundant proof that it is not of God. But neither is this all: For, Seventhly, it is a doctrine full of blasphemy; of such blasphemy as I should dread to mention, but that the honour of our gracious God, and the cause of his truth, will not suffer me to be silent.

5. My God is reconciled, His pard’ning voice I hear; He owns me for his child; I can no longer fear; With confidence I now draw nigh, And Father, Abba Father, cry!

Givest us the victory; True and faithful to thy word, Thou hast glorified thy Son, Jesus Christ, our dying Lord, He for us the fight hath won. 2 Lo ! the prisoner is released, Lighten'd of his fleshly load ; Where the wearv are at rest, He is gather' d into God ! Lo ! the pain of life is past, All his warfare now is o'er ; Death and hell behind are cast, Grief and suffering are no more. Describing Death. &0 vs Yes, the Christian's course is run, Ended is the glorious strife ; Fought the light, the work is done Death is swallovv'd up of life ! Borne by angels on their wings, Far from earth the spirit flies, Finds his God, and sits, and sings, Triumphing in Paradise. Join we then, with one accord, In the new, the joyful song : Absent from our loving Lord We shall not continue long : We shall quit the house of clay, We a better lot shall share ; We shall see the realms of day, Meet our happy brother there. Let the world bewail their dead, Fondly of their loss complain ; Brother, friend, by Jesus freed, Death to thee, to us, is gain ; Thou art enter' d into joy : Let the unbelievers mourn ; We in songs our lives employ, Till we all to God return. HYMN 51. 7's. 1 TTARK ! a voice divides the sky, -*- -*- Happy are the faithful dead ! In the Lord who sweetly die, They from all their toils are freed Them the Spirit hath declared Blest, unutterably blest : Jesus is their great Reward, Jesus is their endless Rest £>4 Describing Death. 2 Follow'd by their works, they go Where their Head hath gone before ; Reconciled by grace below, Grace had open'd Mercy's door ; Justified through faith alone, Here they knew their sins forgiven ; Here they laid their burden down, Hallovv'd, and made meet for heaven. 3 Who can now lament the lot Of a saint in Christ deceased : Let the world, who know us not, Call us hopeless and unbless'd • When from flesh the spirit freed, Hastens homeward to return, Mortals cry, " A man is dead ! " Angels sing, " A child is born ! " 4 Born into the world above,

How merciful thou art : The secret of thy love reveal, And by thine hallowing Spirit dwell For ever in my heart ! HYMN 98. 7's & 6V 1 T TPRIGHT, both in heart and will, ^ We by our God were made ; But we turn'd from good to ill, And o'er the creature stray'd ; Multiplied our wandering thought, Which first was fix'd on God alone ; In ten thousand objects sought The bliss we lost in one. 2 From our own inventions vain Of fancied happiness, Draw us to thyself again, And bid our wanderings cease ; Jesus, speak our souls restored, By Love's divine simplicity ; Re-united to our Lord, And wholly lost in thee ! Praying for Repentance. 1 LEATHER of lights, from whom proceeds *■ Whate'er thy every creature needs ; Whose goodness, providently nigh, Feeds the young ravens when they cry ; To thee I look : my heart prepare ; Suggest, and hearken to my prayer. Praying for Repentance. && Since by thy light myself I see Naked, and poor, and void of thee, Thy eyes must all my thoughts survey, Preventing what my lips would say ; Thou see' st my wants, for help they call, And, ere I speak, thou know'st them all. Thou know'st the baseness of my mind, Wayward, and impotent, and blind ; Thou know'st how unsubdued my will, Averse from good, and prone to ill ; Thou know'st how wide my passions rove, Nor check 'd by fear, nor charm'd by love ! Fain would I know, as known by thee, And feel the indigence I see ; Fain would I all my vileness own, And deep beneath the burden groan ; Abhor the pride that lurks within, Detest and loathe myself and sin. Ah ! give me, Lord, myself to feel ; My total misery reveal : Ah ! give me, Lord, (I still would say,) A heart to mourn, a heart to pray : My business this, my only care, My life, my every breath, be prayer ! HYMN 100. d. l. m.

Water from Salvation's well ; Praise shall your glad tongues employ, While his streaming grace ye feel. Each to each ye then shall say, " Sinners, call upon his name ; O rejoice to see his day ; See it, and his praise proclaim ! " 1 c/4 For J3elierers Rejoicing. 5 Glory to his name belongs, Great, and marvellous, and high Sing unto the Lord your songs, Cry to every nation, cry ! Wondrous things the Lord hath done, Excellent his name we find ; This to all mankind is known, Be it known to all mankind ! 6 Sion, shout thy Lord and King, Israel's Holy One is He ! Give him thanks, rejoice, and sing, Great is He, and dwells in thee. O the grace unsearchable ! While eternal ages roll, God delights in man to dwell, Soul of each believing soul ! HYMN 198. WsSf IV s. 1 |^V WHAT shall I do My Saviour to praise, ^-^ So faithful and true, So plenteous in grace, So strong to deliver, So good to redeem, The weakest believer that hangs upon him ! 2 How happy the man Whose heart is set free, The people that can Be joyful in thee ! Their joy is to walk in The light of thy face ; And still they are talking Of Jesus's grace. 3 Their daily delight Shall be in thy name; They shall as their right Thy righteousness claim : Thy righteousness wearing, And cleansed by thy blood, Bold shall they appear in The presence of God. 4 For thou art their boast, Their glory and power ; And I also trust To see the glad hour, For Believers Rejoicing. IvO My soul's new creation, A life from the dead, The day of salvation, That lifts up my head. 5 For Jesus, my Lord, Is now my defence ; I trust in his word, None plucks me from thence ; Since I have found favour, He all things will do ; My King and my Saviour Shall make me anew. 6 Yes, Lord, I shall see The bliss of thine own, Thy secret to me Shall soon he made known ; For sorrow and sadness I joy shall receive, And share in the gladness Of all that believe. HYMN 199. 10\9<Sf ll's.

1 /^\ Heavenly King, Look down from above ; ^-^ Assist us to sing Thy mercy and love : So sweetly o'erflowing, So plenteous the store, Thou still art bestowing, And giving us more. 2 O God of our life, We hallow thy Name ; Our business and strife Is thee to proclaim ; Accept our thanksgiving For creating grace ; The living, the living Shall show forth thy praise 3 Our Father and Lord, Almighty art Thou ; Preserved by thy word, We worship thee now. The bountiful Donor Of all we enjoy ! Our tongues to thine honour, And lives we employ. 4 But O ! above all, Thy kindness we praise, From sin and from thrall Which saves the lost race ; Thy Son thou hast given The world to redeem, And bring us to heaven, Whose trust is in him. Ub For Believers Rejoicing. 5 Wherefore of thy love We sing and rejoice ; With angels above We lift up our voice : Thy love each believer Shall gladly adore, For ever and ever, When time is no more. HYMN 200. lO^S-ir*. 1 A/fY Father, my God, I long for thy love; -L' -*- O shed it abroad ; Send Christ from above! My heart, ever fainting, He only can cheer ; And all things are wanting, Till Jesus is here. 2 O when shall my tongue Be fill'd with thy praise ! While all the day long I publish thy grace, Thy honour and glory To sinners forth show, Till sinners adore thee, And own thou art true. 3 Thy strength and thy power I now can proclaim, Preserved every hour Through Jesus's Name ; For thou art still by me, And boldest my hand ; No ill can come nigh me, By faith while I stand. 4 My God is my guide : Thy mercies abound ; On every side They compass me round : Thou savest me from sickness, From sin dost retrieve, And strengthen 'st my weakness, And bidd'st me believe. 5 Thou holdest my soul In spiritual life, My foes dost control, And quiet their strife ; Thou rulest my passion, My pride and self-will ; To see thy salvation, Thou bidd'st me " stand still! ^

And admitted the harlots and publicans in. They have heard the glad sound ; They have liberty found, Through the blood of the Lamb, And plentiful pardon in Jesus's name. 4 And shall we not sing Our Saviour and King ? Thy witnesses, we With rapture ascribe our salvation to thee ! Thou, Jesus, hast bless'd, And believers increased, Who thankfully own, We are freely forgiven through mercy alone. 5 His Spirit revives His work in our lives, His wonders of grace, So mightily wrought in the primitive days. O that all men might know His tokens below, Our Saviour confess, And embrace the glad tidings of pardon and peace ! 6 Thou Saviour of all, Effectually call For Believer's Rejoicing. 'Zio The sinners that stray ; And, O, let a nation be born in a day ! Thy sign let them see, And flow unto thee For the oil and the wine, For the blissful assurance of favour divine. 7 Our heathenish land Beneath thy command In mercy receive ; And make us a pattern to all that believe : Then, then let it spread, Thy knowledge and dread, Till the earth is o'erflovv'd, And the universe fill'd with the glory of God. 1 A LL glory to God in the sky, -^~*~ And peace upon earth be restored : O Jesus, exalted on high, Appear our omnipotent Lord ! Who, meanly in Bethlehem born, Didst stoop to redeem a lost race, Once more to thy creatures return, And reign in thy kingdom of grace ! 2 When thou in our flesh didst appear, All nature acknowledged thy birth ; Arose the acceptable year, And heaven was open'd on earth : Receiving its Lord from above, The world was united to bless The Giver of concord and love, The Prince and the Author of peace. 3 O wouldst thou again be made known, Again in thy Spirit descend, And set up in each of thine own, A kingdom that never shall end ! ^14 For Believers Rejoicing. Thou only art able to bless, And make the glad nations obey, And bid the dire enmity cense, And bow the whole world to thy sway 4 Come then to thy servants again, Who long thy appearing to know ; Thy quiet and peaceable reign In mercy establish below : All sorrow before thee shall fly,

A " Sit thou, in glory sit, Till I thine enemies have made To bow beneath thy feet." 2 Jesus, my Lord, mighty to save, What can my hopes withstand, While thee my Advocate I have, Enthroned at God's right hand ? 3 Nature is subject to thy word ; All power to thee is given, The uncontroll'd, almighty Lord Of hell, and earth, and heaven. 4 And shall my sins thy will oppose ? Master, thy right maintain ! O let not thy usurping foes In me thy servant reign ! 5 Come, then, and claim me for thine own ; Saviour, thy right assert ! Come, gracious Lord, set up thy throne, And reign within my heart ! 6 So shall I ijless thy pleasing sway ; And, sitting at thy feet, Thy laws with all my heart obey. With all my soul submit. 7 So shall I do thy will below, As angels do above ; The virtue of thy passion show, The triumphs of thy low For Believers Fighting. 263 8 Thy love the conquest more than gains ; To all I shall proclaim, " Jesus, the King, the Conqueror reigns ; Bow down to Jesu's Name." 9 To thee shall earth and hell submit, And every foe shall fall, Till death expires beneath thy feet, And God is all in all *HYMN 276. p. m. 1 A^70RSHIP, and thanks, and blessing, * * And strength ascribe to Jesus ! Jesus alone Defends his own, When earth and hell oppress us. Jesus with joy we witness Almighty to deliver ; Our seals set to, That God is true, And reigns a King for ever. 2 Omnipotent Redeemer, Our ransom' d souls adore thee : Our Saviour thou, We find it now, And give thee all the glory. We sing thine arm unshorten'd, Brought through our sore temptation ; With heart and voice In thee rejoice, The God of our salvation. 3 Thine arm hath safely brought us A way no more expected, Than when thy sheep Pass'd through the deep, By crystal walls protected. Thy glory was our rear-ward, Thine hand our lives did cover, And we, even we, Have pass'd the sea. And march'd triumphant over ^04 For Believers Fighting. 4 The world's and Satan's malice Thou, Jesus, hast confounded ; And, hy thy grace, With songs of praise

3 Lord, I will not let thee go, Till the blessing thou bestow : Hear my Advocate Divine ! Lo ! to his my suit I join ; Join'd to his, it cannot fail : Bless me ; for I will prevail ! 4 Heavenly Father, Life Divine, Change my nature into thine ! Move and spread throughout my soul, Actuate and fill the whole ! Be it I no longer now Living in the flesh, but Thou. 5 Holy Ghost, no more delay ! Come, and in thy temple stay ! Now thine inward witness bear, Strong, and permanent, and clear : Spring of Life, thyself impart : Rise eternal in my heart ! o74 Seeking for full Redemption. HYMN 391. l.m. Ezekiel xxxvi. 25, &c. 1 /^ OD of all power, and truth, and grace, ^J Which shall from age to age endure ; Whose word, when heaven and earth shall pass, Remains and stands for ever sure : 2 That I thy mercy may proclaim, That all mankind thy truth may see, Hallow thy great and glorious name, And perfect holiness in me. 3 Thy sanctifying Spirit pour, To quench my thirst, and make me clean . Now, Father, let the gracious shower Descend, and make me pure from sin. 4 Purge me from every sinful blot ; My idols all be cast aside ; Cleanse me from every sinful thought, From all the filth of self and pride. 5 Give me a new, a perfect heart, From doubt, and fear, and sorrow free ; The mind which was in Christ impart, And let my spirit cleave to thee. (> O take this heart of stone away ! Thy sway it doth not, cannot own : In me no longer let it stay ; O take away this heart of stone ! 7 O that I now, from sin released, Thy word may to the utmost prove, Enter into the promised rest, The Canaan of thy perfect love ! HYMN 392. l. m. 1 T^ATHER, supply my every need ; r Sustain the life thyself hast given ; Seeking for full Redemption. 3/5 Call for the never-failing bread, The manna that comes down from heaven. 2 The gracious fruits of righteousness, Thy blessings' unexhausted store, In me abundantly increase ; Nor ever let me hunger more. 3 Let me no more, in deep complaint,

4 All are not lost, or wander'd back ; All have not left thy Church and Thee : There are who suffer for thy sake, Enjoy thy glorious infamy, Esteem the scandal of the cross, And only seek divine applause. 5 Thou who hast kept us to this hour, O keep us faithful to the end ! When, robed with majesty and poweT, Our Jesus shall from heaven descend, His friends and confessors to own, And seat us on his glorious throne. HYMN 484. HfrfrU'*. 1 A PPOINTED by thee, We meet in thy name, ^*- And meekly agree To follow the Lamb, To trace thy example, The world to disdain, And constantly trample On pleasure and pain. 2 Rejoicing in hope, We humbly go on, And daily take up The pledge of our crown ; In doing and bearing The will of our Lord, We still are preparing To meet our reward For the Society on Meeting. 4oo 3 O Jesus, appear ! No longer delay To sanctify here, And bear us away : The end of our meeting On earth let us see, Triumphantly sitting In glory with thee ! HYMN 485. s. m. 1 TESU, we look to thee, J Thy promised presence claim ! Thou in the midst of us shalt be, Assembled in thy name : Thy name salvation is, Which here we come to prove ; Thy name is life, and health, and peace, And everlasting love. 2 Not in the name of pride Or selfishness we meet ; From nature's paths we turn aside, And worldly thoughts forget, We meet, the grace to take Which thou hast freely given ; We meet on earth for thy dear sake, That we may meet in heaven. 3 Present we know thou art ; But, O, thyself reveal ! Now, Lord, let every bounding heart The mighty comfort feel ! O may thy quick'ning voice The death of sin remove ; And bid our inmost souls rejoice In hope of perfect love ! HYMN 486. c. m. 1 tJEE, Jesus, thy disciples see, ^ The promised blessing give ! Met in thy name, we look to thee, Expecting to receive. 4o4 For the Society on Meeting'. 2 Thee we expect, our faithful Lord, Who in thy name are join'd ; We wait, according to thy word, Thee in the midst to find.

Though our bodies continue below ; The redeem'd of the Lord, We remember his word, And with singing to Paradise go. 3 With singing we praise The original grace, By our heavenly Father bestow'd ; Our being receive From his bounty, and live To the honour and glory of God. 4 For thy glory we are, Created to share Both the nature and kingdom divine ; Created again, That our souls may remain In time and eternity thine. 4bU For the Society giving Thanks. 5 With thanks we approve The design of thy love, Which hath join'd us in Jesus's name ; So united in heart, That we never can part, Till we meet at the feast of the Lamb. 6 There, there at his feet We shall suddenly meet, And be parted in body no more ! We shall sing to our lyres, With the heavenly choirs, And our Saviour in glory adore. 7 Hallelujah we sing, To our Father and King, And his rapturous praises repeat : To the Lamb that was slain, Hallelujah again, Sing all heaven, and fall at his feet ! 8 In assurance of hope, We to Jesus look up, Till his banner unfurl' d in the air From our graves we shall see, And cry out, M It is he!" And fly up to acknowledge him there. HYMN 492. l. m. 1 \^THAT shall we offer our good Lord, * » Poor nothings ! for his boundless grace ? Fain would we his great name record, And worthily set forth his praise. 2 Great Object of our growing love, To whom our more than all we owe, Open the Fountain from above, And let it our full souls o'erflow. .'J So shall our lives thy power proclaim, Thy grace for every sinner free ; Till all mankind shall learn thy name, Shall all stretch out their hands to thee. 4 Open a door which earth and hell May strive to shut, but strive in vain ; Let thy word richly in us dwell, And let our gracious fruit remain. For the Society giving Thanks. 4b I 5 O multiply the sower's seed ! And fruit we every hour shall bear, Throughout the world thy gospel spread. Thy everlasting truth declare. 6 We all, in perfect love renew'd,

V_T When storms of sharp distress invade ; Ere we can offer our complaints, Behold him present with his aid ! 2 Let mountains from their seats be huiTd Down to the deep, and buried there, -- Convulsions shake the solid world, -- Our faith shall never yield to fear. 3 Loud may the troubled ocean roar ; In sacred peace our souls abide ; £>lo The Experience, §t., While every nation, every shore, Trembles, and dreads the swelling tide. 4 There is a stream, whose gentle flow Supplies the city of our God ; Life, love, and joy still gliding through, And watering our divine abode. 5 This sacred stream, thy vital word, Thus all our raging fear controls : Sweet peace thy promises afford, And give new strength to fainting souls. 6 Sion enjoys her Monarch's love, Secure against the threat'ning hour ; Nor can her firm foundation move, Built on His faithfulness and power. HYMN 679. c. m. Psalm xxiii. 1 A /TY Shepherd will supply my need, -i-* J- Jehovah is his name ; In pastures fresh he makes me feed, Beside the living stream. 2 He brings my wandering spirit back, When I forsake his ways ; And leads me, for his mercy's sake, In paths of truth and grace. 3 When I walk through the shades of death, Thy presence is my stay : A word of thy supporting breath Drives all my fears away. 4 Thy hand, in sight of all my foes, Doth now my table spread : My cup with blessings overflows, Thine oil anoints my head. of Believers. 0 1 *? 5 The sure provisions of my God Attend me all my days : O may thine house be mine abode, And all my work be praise ! HYMN 680. c. m. " The greatest of these is Charity? 1 TTAPPY the heart where graces reign, JL A Where love inspires the breast : Love is the brightest of the train, And perfects all the rest. 2 Knowledge, alas ! 'tis all in vain, And all in vain our fear : Our stubborn sins will fight and reign, If love be absent there. 3 'Tis love that makes our cheerful feet In swift obedience move : The devils know, and tremble too ; But Satan cannot love. 4 This is the grace that lives and sings,

4 Save, till all these tempests end, All who on thy love depend ; Waft our happy spirits o'er ; Land us on the heavenly shore. HYMN 764. 7's Sr 6's. Another, 1 ORD of earth, and air, and sea, -1-- A Supreme in power and grace, Under thy protection, we Our souls and bodies place. Bold an unknown land to try, We launch into the foaming deep ; Rocks, and storms, and deaths defv, With Jesus in the ship. Miscellaneous Hymns. 685 2 Who the calm can understand, In a believer's breast ? In the hollow of his hand Our souls securely rest : Winds may rise, and seas may roar, We on his love our spirits stay : Him with quiet joy adore, Whom winds and seas obey. HYMN 765. c. m. The Traveller's Hymn. 1 TTOW are thy servants blest, O Lord ! -*- ■*■ How sure is their defence ! Eternal Wisdom is their guide, Their help Omnipotence. 2 In foreign realms, and lands remote, Supported by thy care, Through burning climes they pass unhurt, And breathe in tainted air. 3 When by the dreadful tempest borne High on the broken wave, They know thou art not slow to hear. Nor impotent to save. 4 The storm is laid, the winds retire, Obedient to thy will ; The sea, that roars at thy command, At thy command is still. 5 In midst of dangers, fears, and deaths, Thy goodness we'll adore; We '11 praise thee for thy mercies past, And humbly hope for more. 6 Our life, while thou preserv'st that life, Thy sacrifice shall be ; And death, when death shall be our lot, Shall join our souls to thee Oob Miscellaneous Hymns. HYMN 766. 6-8's. JVatch-Night. 1 TTOW many pass the guilty night ■*- ■*- In revellings and frantic mirth ! The creature is their sole delight, Their happiness the things of earth : For us suffice the season past ; We choose the better part at last. 2 We will not close our wakeful eyes, We will not let our eyelids sleep, But humbly lift them to the skies, And all a solemn vigil keep : So many years on sin bestow'd, Can we not watch one night for God ? 3 We can, O Jesus, for thy sake,

in the light, 15, 198, 281, 400, 522 Wandering from God, 66 4 Wanderers' rest, 114, 170, 186, 296, 314 War, 60, 62, 442, 447, 466 Warning, 305, 306, 309 Washed in Christ's blood, 184, 217, 251, 346, 438 Watchfulness, 54, 55, 303, 305, 306, 309- 311,318 Walchnight, 766, 767 Water and blood, 371, 618 Water of Life, or Well of Salvation, 197 364, 505 Way, Christ the, 169, 312, 350, 357, 626 Ways of God pleasant. See Pleasantness. Weakness. See Impotency. Wedding hymn, 510 Whitsunday, 3, 86, 87, 377, 456, 457, 506, Widow, death of a, 53 Will of God done as in heaven, 357, 365, 418, 528 Winnowing fun, 502 Wisdom's excellency, 14, 319, 320 Witness of the Spirit, 85, 96, 97, 1(35, 202, 26'1, 351, 37 1-, 376, 390, 651, 656 Witnesses for Christ, 279, 402, 519 Wulf, Satan, 501 Woman of Canaan, 164 Word, blessing on the, 665 growth of the, 706 Working for God, 318, 321-325, 327, 529 Works do not merit salvation, 92, 115, 127, 145, 217 Works of God, 567-569, 573 World, Christ the light of the, 608 despised, 285 malignity of, 319 Worldly-mindedness, prayer against, 108 Worldly spirit, deprecated, 508 Worship of God, 121, 262, 316, 540, 542, Worship, delightful, 488, 491, 541 family, 739 foundation of a place of, 737 opening a place of, 736 public, 573-575, 577, 579-581, 738 Wrestling with God, 140, 111, 151, 155, Yoke of Christ easy, 324, 495 Yoke-fellows in the Gospel, 524 Young converts prayed for, 458 Youth difficult to train up, 467-469, 475 Zeal desired, 300, 319, 433 for God, 378,513, 526 for men's salvation, 33, 270, 279, 433, Zerubbabel, 382 Zion's glory, 70, 73, 75, 497, 695 Char . Ver. Hymn Ver. Ct3 j. Ver. Hymn Ver. Chap. Ver. Hymn. Ver. Chap. Ver. Hymn. Ver. 2? -- 4 3, 4 272 7 3,4 18 206 1 1, 2 81 3, 4 33 482 5 106 6 5 162 4, 5 3,4 21,22 39 1, 2 10 736 2 62-64 736 24 119 6, 7 31-39 412 44 218 4 11, 12 358 1, 2 13 425 19 109 4 1, 4 19,20 3, 4 5 1!) 21,22 16-28 348 6 249 1, 2 2 •21 188 4 26-29 2--5 713 2 299 3,7,8 20-22 2, 3 1--4 23,24 5-7 144 6--9 2--4 3--5 630 7 11 499 2, 3 724 4

In assurance of . 460 In blessing thee . 411 In daily prayer to 440 In darkest shades 207 In darknesswilling-204 In deepest hell . 594 In earth, in heaven 233 In every fiery . . 550 In every new dis- 540 In flesh we part . 499 In foreign realms 685 In God we put our 327 In heaven thou . 227 In him we have . 449 la him when bre- 459 1 In his great name 225 In holy duties . 542 In hope, against 344 In hope of that ec- 317 In hope of that im- 662 In Jesus Christ . 501 In Jesu'sname . 489 In light thou dwell-233 In light unsearch- 525 In loud hallelujahs 56 In manifested love 126 In many a soul . 641 In me thine utmost 299 In me thy Spirit 289 In midst of dan- . 685 In nature's strength 124 In part we only . 679 In pity of the soul 673 In presence of thy 668 In reason's ear . 531 In safety lead thy 428 In search of empty 11 In Sion God is . 5 10 In spite of our . 438 In suffering be thy 357 In tears who sow'd 46 1 In that revealing . 240 In the devouring . 28 In the strength of 266 In the time of my 281 In the wilderness 108 In thee, O Lord . 271 In thee we move 462 In them let all man- 22 In this identic . 649 In this reanimated 654 In thy members 400 I n thy spotless poo- 495 In vain doth Satan 269 In vaiu our trem- 593 In vain thou strug- 138 In vaipt;ll thou the 430 In vain we tune . 596 In want, my plenti-204 In wisdom infinite 230 Incarnate Deity . 244 Inferiors, as a . 439 Infinite joy, or end- 45 Infinite strength 219 Inscribing with the 75 Inspire the living. 86 Inured to poverty 220 Invited by him, we 455 Is crucify 'd for me 32 Is here a soul that 84 Is there a thing be- 325 Is therea thing than275 Is there a thing too 136 It cost thy blood myl44 It stands securely 77 I ts body totally . 392 Its energy exert . 640 Its streams the . 241 Its Surety, thou . 127

1 Forth in thy name, O Lord, I go, my daily labor to pursue; Thee, only Thee, resolved to know in all I think or speak or do.

I know Thee, Saviour, who Thou art. Jesus, the feeble sinner’s friend; Nor wilt Thou with the night depart. But stay and love me to the end, Thy mercies never shall remove; Thy nature and Thy Name is Love.

Lame as I am, I take the prey, Hell, earth, and sin, with ease o'ercome; I leap for joy, pursue my way, And as a bounding hart fly home, Through all eternity to prove Thy nature and Thy Name is Love.

16. If you are not willing to lose all the labour you have been at, to break the will of your child, to bring his will into subjection to yours, that it may be afterward subject to the will of God, there is one advice which, though little known, should be particularly attended to. It may seem a small circumstance; but it is of more consequence than one can easily imagine. It is this: Never, on any account, give a child anything that it cries for. For it is a true observation, (and you may make the experiment as often as you please,) if you give a child what he cries for you pay him for crying; and then he will certainly cry again. "But if I do not give it to him when he cries, he will scream all day long." If he does it is your own fault; for it is in your power effectually to prevent it: For no mother need suffer a child to cry aloud after it is a year old. "Why, it is impossible to hinder it." So many suppose, but it is an entire mistake. I am a witness of the direct contrary; and so are many others. My own mother had ten children, each of whom had spirit enough; yet not one of them was ever heard to cry aloud after it was a year old. A gentlewoman of Sheffield (several of whose children I suppose are alive still) assured me she had the same success with regard to her eight children. When some were objecting to the possibility of this, Mr. Parson Greenwood (well-known in the north of England) replied, "This cannot be impossible: I have had the proof of it in my own family. Nay, of more than this. I had six children by my former wife; and she suffered none of them to cry aloud after they were ten months old. And yet none of their spirits were so broken, as to unfit them for any of the offices of life." This, therefore, may be done by any woman of sense, who may thereby save herself abundance of trouble, and prevent that disagreeable noise, the squalling of young children, from being heard under her roof.

But is it easy for anyone to conceive a scene of deeper distress than this Suppose you are standing by, just when the messenger comes in, and the message is delivered, "I am sorry to tell you, but you must know it; your husband is no more! He was making haste out of the vessel, and his foot slipped. It is true, after a time, his body was found; but there it lies, without any signs of life." In what a condition are now both the mother and the children! Perhaps, for a while, stupid, overwhelmed, silent; staring at each other; then bursting out into loud and bitter lamentation! Now is the time to help them, by assisting those who make it their business so to do. Now let nothing hinder you from improving the glorious opportunity! Restore the husband to his disconsolate wife, the father to his weeping children! It is true, you cannot do this in person; you cannot be upon the spot. But you may do it in an effectual manner by assisting those that are. You may now, by your generous contribution, send them the help which you cannot personally give. O shut not up your bowels of compassion towards them! Now open your hearts and your hands! If you have much, give plenteously; if not, give a little, with a willing mind. 2. To you who believe the Christian Revelation, I may speak in a still stronger manner. You believe, your blessed Master "left you an example, that you might tread in his steps." Now, you know his whole life was one labour of love. You know "how he went about doing good," and that without intermission; declaring to all, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Is not that, then, the language of your heart -- Thy mind throughout my life be shown, While list'ning to the wretches' cry, The widows' and the orphans' groan, On mercy's wings I swiftly fly, The poor and helpless to relieve, My life, my all, for them to give.

4. Yea, and if you desire to please, even on this account, take that advice of the Apostle, "Put away all lying." It is the remark of an ingenious author, that, of all vices, lying never yet found an apologist, any that would openly plead in its favour, whatever his private sentiments might be. But it should be remembered, Mr. Addison went to a better world before Lord Chesterfield's Letters were published. Perhaps his apology for it was the best that ever was or can be made for so bad a cause. But, after all, the labour he has bestowed thereon, it has only "semblance of worth, not substance." It has no solidity in it; it is nothing better than a shining phantom. And as lying can never be commendable or innocent, so neither can it be pleasing; at least when it is stripped of its disguise, and appears in its own shape. Consequently, it ought to be carefully avoided by all those who wish to please their neighbour for his good to edification. 5. "But is not flattery," a man may say, "one species of lying And has not this been allowed in all ages to be the sure means of pleasing Has not that observation been confirmed by numerous experiments, -- Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parat Flattery creates friends, plain-dealing enemies Has not a late witty [prominent] writer, in his `Sentimental Journal,' related some striking instances of this" I answer, It is true: Flattery is pleasing for a while. and not only to weak minds, as the desire of praise, whether deserved or undeserved, is planted in every child of man. But it is pleasing only for a while. As soon as the mask drops off, as soon as it appears that the speaker meant nothing by his soft words, we are pleased no longer. Every man's own experience teaches him this. And we all know, that if a man continues to flatter, after his insincerity is discovered, it is disgustful, not agreeable. Therefore, even this fashionable species of lying is to be avoided, by all that are desirous of pleasing their neighbour to his lasting advantage.

9. I speak this even upon the common supposition of the plurality of worlds, -- a very favourite notion with all those who deny the Christian Revelation; and for this reason, because it affords them a foundation for so plausible an objection to it. But the more I consider that supposition, the more I doubt of it: Insomuch that, if it were allowed by all the philosophers in Europe, still I could not allow it without stronger proof than any I have met with yet. 10. "Nay, but is not the argument of the grey Huygens sufficient to put it beyond all doubt -- `When we view,' says that able astronomer, `the moon through a good telescope, we clearly discover rivers and mountains on her spotted globe. Now, where rivers are, there are doubtless plants and vegetables of various kinds: And where vegetables are, there are undoubtedly animals; yea, rational ones, as on earth. It follows, then, that the moon has its inhabitants, we may easily suppose, so are all the secondary planets; and, in particular, all the satellites or moons of Jupiter and Saturn. And if the secondary planets are inhabited, why not the primary Why should we doubt it of Jupiter and Saturn themselves, as well as Mars, Venus, and Mercury'" 11. But do not you know, that Mr. Huygens himself, before he died, doubted of this whole hypotheses For upon further observation he found reason to believe that the moon has no atmosphere. He observed, that in a total eclipse of the sun, on the removal of the shade from any part of the earth, the sun immediately shines bright upon it; whereas if the moon had atmosphere, would appear dim and dusky. Thus, after an eclipse of the moon, first a dusky light appears on that part of it from which the shadow of the earth removes, while that light passes that the moon has no atmosphere. Consequently, it has no clouds, no rain, no springs, no rivers; and therefore no plants or animals. But there is no proof or probability that the moon is inhabited; neither have we any proof that the other planets are. Consequently, the foundation being removed, the whole fabric falls to the ground.

On Conscience "For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience." 2 Cor. 1:12. 1. How few words are there in the world more common than this, Conscience! It is in almost every one's mouth. And one would thence be apt to conclude, that no word can be found which is more generally understood. But it may be doubted whether this is the case or no; although numberless treatises have been written upon it. For it is certain, a great part of those writers have rather puzzled the cause than cleared it; that they have usually "darkened counsel by uttering words without knowledge." 2. The best treatise on the subject which I remember to have seen is translated from the French of Mons. Placette, which describes in a clear and rational manner the nature and offices of conscience. But though it was published near a hundred years ago, it is in very few hands; and indeed a great part of those that have read it complain of the length of it. An octavo volume of several hundred pages, upon so plain a subject, was likely to prove a trial of patience to most persons of understanding. It seems, therefore, there is still wanting a discourse upon the subject, short, as well as clear. This, by the assistance of God, I will endeavor to supply, by showing, First, the nature of conscience; and, Then, the several sorts of it; after which, I shall conclude with a few important directions.

I. 1. And, First, I am to show the nature of conscience. This a very pious man in the last century (in his sermon on Universal Conscientiousness) describes in the following manner: -- "This word, which literally signifies, knowing with another, excellently sets forth the scriptural motion of it. So Job: (16:19:) 'My witness is in heaven.' And so the Apostle: (Rom. 9:1:) 'I say the truth; my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.' In both place it is as if he had said, 'God witnesseth with my conscience. Conscience is placed in the middle, under God, and above man. It is a kind of silent reasoning of the mind, whereby those things which are judged to be right are approved of with pleasure; but those which are judged evil are disapproved of with uneasiness.'" This is a tribunal in the breast of men, to accuse sinners, and excuse them that do well. 2. To view it in a somewhat different light: Conscience, as well as the Latin word from which it is taken, and the Greek word, suneidhsevs, necessarily imply, the knowledge of two or more things together: Suppose the knowledge of our words and actions, and at the same time of their goodness or badness; if it be not rather the faculty whereby we know at once our actions and the quality of them. 3. Conscience, then, is that faculty whereby we are at once conscience of our own thoughts, words, and actions; and of their merit or demerit, of their being good or bad; and, consequently, deserving either praise or censure. And some pleasure generally attends the former sentence; some uneasiness the latter: But this varies exceedingly, according to education and a thousand other circumstances.

6. They know, indeed, that at the same time a man is justified, sanctification properly begins. For when he is justified, he is "born again," "born from above," "born of the Spirit;" which, although it is not (as some suppose) the whole process of sanctification, is doubtless the gate of it. Of this, likewise, God has given them a full view. They know, the new birth implies as great a change in the soul, in him that is "born of the Spirit," as was wrought in his body when he was born of a woman: Not an outward change only, as from drunkenness to sobriety, from robbery or theft to honesty; (this is the poor, dry, miserable conceit of those that know nothing of real religion;) but an inward change from all unholy, to all holy tempers, -- from pride to humility, from passionateness to meekness, from peevishness and discontent to patience and resignation; in a word, from an earthly, sensual, devilish mind, to the mind that was in Christ Jesus. 7. It is true, a late very eminent author, in his strange "Treatise on Regeneration," proceeds entirely on the supposition, that it is the whole gradual progress of sanctification. No; it is only the threshold of sanctification, the first entrance upon it. And as, in the natural birth, a man is born at once, and then grows larger and stronger by degrees; so in the spiritual birth, a man is born at once, and then gradually increases in spiritual stature and strength. The new birth, therefore, is the first point of sanctification, which may increase more and more unto the perfect day. 8. It is, then, a great blessing given to this people, that as they do not think or speak of justification so as to supersede sanctification, so neither do they think or speak of sanctification so as to supersede justification. They take care to keep each in its own place, laying equal stress on one and the other. They know God has joined these together, and it is not for man to put them asunder: Therefore they maintain, with equal zeal and diligence, the doctrine of free, full, present justification, on the one hand, and of entire sanctification both of heart and life, on the other; being as tenacious of inward holiness as any Mystic, and of outward, as any Pharisee.

Death is properly the separation of the soul from the body. Of this we are certain. but we are not certain (at least in many cases) of the time when this separation is made. Is it when respiration ceases according to the well-known maxim, Nullus spiritus, nulla vita: "Where there is no breath, there is no life." Nay, we cannot absolutely affirm this: For many instances have been known, of those whose breath was totally lost, and yet their lives have been recovered. Is it when the heart no longer beats, or when the circulation of the blood ceases Not so. For the heart may beat anew; and the circulation of the blood, after it is quite interrupted, may begin again. Is the soul separated from the body, when the whole body is stiff and cold as a piece of ice But there have been several instances lately, of persons who were thus cold and stiff, and had no symptoms of life remaining, who, nevertheless, upon proper application, recovered both life and health. Therefore we can say no more, than that death is the separation of the soul and body; but in many cases God only can tell the moment of that separation. 13. But what we are much concerned to know, and deeply to consider, is, the end of life. For what end is life bestowed upon the children of me Why were we sent into the world For one sole end, and for no other, to prepare for eternity. For this alone we live. For this, and no other purpose, is our life either given or continued. It pleased the all-wise God, at the season which he saw best, to arise in the greatness of his strength, and create the heavens and the earth, and all things that are therein. having prepared all things for him, He "created man in his own image, after his own likeness." And what was the end of his creation It was one, and no other, -- that he might know, and love, and enjoy, and serve his great Creator to all eternity.

3. But still none of our senses, no, not the sight itself, can reach beyond the bounds of this visible world. They supply us with such knowledge of the material world as answers all the purposes of life. But as this was the design for which they were given, beyond this they cannot go. They furnish us with no information at all concerning the invisible world. 4. But the wise and gracious Governor of the worlds, both visible and invisible, has prepared a remedy for this defect. He hath appointed faith to supply the defect of sense; to take us up where sense sets us down, and help us over the great gulf. Its office begins where that of sense ends. Sense is an evidence of things that are seen; of the visible, the material world, and the several parts of it. Faith, on the other hand, is the "evidence of things not seen;" of the invisible world; of all those invisible things which are revealed in the oracles of God. But indeed they reveal nothing, they are a mere dead letter, if they are "not mixed with faith in those that hear them." 5. In particular, faith is an evidence to me of the existence of that unseen thing, my own soul. Without this I should be in utter uncertainty concerning it. I should be constrained to ask that melancholy question, Hear'st thou submissive; but a lowly birth, Some separate particles of finer earth But by faith I know it is an immortal spirit, made in the image of God; in his natural and his moral image; "an incorruptible picture of the God of glory." By the same evidence I know that I am now fallen short of the glorious image of God; yea, that I, as well as all mankind, am "dead in trespasses and sins:" So utterly dead, that "in me dwelleth no good thing;" that I am inclined to all evil, and totally unable to quicken my own soul. 6. By faith I know that, besides the souls of men there are other orders of spirits; yea, I believe that Millions of creatures walk the earth, Unseen, whether we wake, or if we sleep.

4. But why is it that so little advantage is derived from it to the Christian world Are Christians any better than other men Are they better than Mahometans or Heathens To say the truth, it is well if they are not worse; worse than either Mahometans or Heathens. In many respects they are abundantly worse; but then they are not properly Christians. The generality of these, though they hear the Christian name, do not know what Christianity is. They no more understand it than they do Greek or Hebrew; therefore they can be no better for it. What do the Christians, so called, of the Eastern Church, dispersed throughout the Turkish dominions, know of genuine Christianity those of the Morea, of Circassia, Mongrelia, Georgia Are they not the very dregs of mankind And have we reason to think that those of the Southern Church, those inhabiting Abyssinia, have any more conception than they, of "worshipping God in spirit and in truth" Look we nearer home. See the Northern Churches; those that are under the Patriarch of Moscow. How exceedingly little do they know either of outward or inward Christianity! How many thousands, yea, myriads, of those poor savages know nothing of Christianity but the name! How little more do they know than the heathen Tartars on the one hand, or the heathen Chinese on the other! 5. But is not Christianity well known, at least, to all the inhabitants of the western world a great part of which is eminently termed Christendom, or the land of Christians. Part of these are still members of the Church of Rome; part are termed Protestants. As to the former, Portuguese, Spaniards Italians, French, Germans, what do the hulk of them know of scriptural Christianity Having had frequent opportunity of conversing with many of these, both at home and abroad, I am bold to affirm, that they are in general totally ignorant, both as to the theory and practice of Christianity; so that they are "perishing" by thousands "for lack of knowledge," -- for want of knowing the very first principles of Christianity.

6. "But surely this cannot be the case of the Protestants in France, Switzerland, Germany, and Holland; much less in Denmark and Sweden." Indeed I hope it is not altogether. I am persuaded, there are among them many knowing Christians; but I fear we must not think that one in ten, if one in fifty, is of this number; certainly not, if we may form a judgment of them by those we find in Great Britain and Ireland. Let us see how matters stand at our own door. Do the people of England, in general, (not the highest or the lowest; for these usually know nothing of the matter; but people of the middle rank,) understand Christianity Do they conceive what it is Can they give an intelligible account, either of the speculative or practical part of it What know they of the very first principles of it -- of the natural and moral attributes of God; of his particular providence; of the redemption of man; of the offices of Christ; of the operations of the Holy Ghost; of justification; of the new birth; of inward and outward sanctification speak of any of these things to the first ten persons you are in company with; and will you not find nine out of the ten ignorant of the whole affair And are not most of the inhabitants of the Scotch Highlands full as ignorant as these; yea, and the common people in Ireland (I mean the Protestants, of whom alone we are now speaking.) Make a fair inquiry, not only in the country cabins, but in the cities of Cork, Waterford, Limerick; yea, in Dublin itself. How few know what Christianity means! How small a number will you find that have any conception of the analogy of faith! of the connected chain of scripture truths, and their relation to each other, -- namely, the natural corruption of man; justification by faith; the new birth; inward and outward holiness. It must be acknowledged by all competent judges, who converse freely with their neighbours in these kingdoms, that a vast majority of them know no more of these things than they do of Hebrew or Arabic. And what good can Christianity do to these, who are so totally ignorant of it

On Knowing Christ After The Flesh "Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we did know Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." 2 Cor. 5:16. 1. I have long desired to see something clearly and intelligibly wrote on these words. This is doubtless a point of no small importance: it enters deep into the nature of religion; and yet what treatise have we in the English language which is written upon it Possibly there may be such; but none of them has come to my notice, no, not so much as a single sermon.' 2. This is here introduced by the Apostle in a very solemn manner. The words literally translated run thus: 'He died for all, that the who live', all who live upon the earth, 'might not henceforth from the moment they knew him, 'live unto themselves seek their own honour, or profit, or pleasure, "but unto him," in righteousness and true holiness. (2 Cor. 5:15) "So that we from this time," we that know him by faith, "know no one," either the rest of the Apostles, or you, or any other person, "after the flesh." This uncommon expression, on which the whole doctrine depends, seems to mean, we regard no man according to his former state, -- his country, riches, power, or wisdom. We consider all men only in their spiritual state, and as they stand related to a better world. `Yea, if we have known even Christ after the flesh, (which undoubtedly they had done, beholding and loving him as a man, with a natural affection,) yet now we know him so no more. We no more know him as a man, by his face, shape, voice, or manner of conversation. We no more think of him as a man, or love him under that character. 3. The meaning, then, of this strongly figurative expression appears to be no other than this. From the time that we are created anew in Christ Jesus we do not think, or speak, or act, with regard to our blessed Lord, as a mere man. We do not now use any expression with relation to Christ which may not be applied to him not only as he is man, but as he is "God over all, blessed for ever."

Human Life A Dream "Even like as a dream when one awaketh; so shalt thou make their image to vanish out of the city." Ps. 73:20. 1. Anyone that considers the foregoing verses will easily observe that the Psalmist is speaking directly of the wicked, that prosper in their wickedness. It is very common for these utterly to forget that they are creatures of a day; to live as if they were never to die; as if their present state was to endure for ever; or, at least as if they were indisputably sure that they "had much goods laid up for many years:" So that they might safely say, "Soul, take thine ease; eat, drink, and be merry." But how miserable a mistake is this! How often does God say to such a one, "Thou fool! this night shall thy soul be required of thee!" Well then may it be said of them, "O, how suddenly do they consume!" -- perish, and come to a fearful end. Yea, "even like as a dream when one awaketh; so shalt thou make their image to vanish out of the city." 2. But I would at present carry this thought farther; I would consider it in a general sense, and show how near a resemblance there is between human life and a dream. An ancient poet carries the comparison farther still, when he styles life, "the dream of a shadow." And so does Cowley, when he cries out, O life, thou nothing's younger brother! So like, that we mistake the one for the' other! But, setting these and all other flights of poetry aside, I would seriously inquire, wherein this resemblance lies; wherein the analogy between the one and the other does properly consist.

3. In order to this, I would inquire, First, What is a dream You will say, "Who does not know this" Might you not rather say, Who does know Is there anything more mysterious in nature Who is there that has not experienced it, that has not dreamed a thousand times Yet he is no more able to explain the nature of it, than he is to grasp the skies. Who can give any clear, satisfactory account of the parent of dreams, sleep It is true, many physicians have attempted this, but they have attempted it in vain. They have talked learnedly about it, but have left the matter at last just as dark as it was before. They tell us some of its properties and effects; but none can tell what is the essence of it. 4. However, we know the origin of dreams, and that with some degree of certainty. There can be no doubt but some of them arise from the present constitution of the body; while others of them are probably occasioned by the passions of the mind. Again: We are clearly informed in Scripture, that some are caused by the operation of good angels; as others, undoubtedly, are owing to the power and malice of evil angels (if we may dare to suppose that there are any such now; or, at least, that they have anything to do in the world). From the same divine treasury of knowledge we learn that, on some extraordinary occasions, the great Father of spirits has manifested himself to human spirits, "in dreams and visions of the night." But which of all these arise from natural, which from supernatural, influence, we are many times not able to determine.

5. And how can we certainly distinguish between our dreams and our waking thoughts What criterion is there by which we may surely know whether we are awake or asleep It is true, as soon as we awake out of sleep, we know we have been in a dream, and are now awake. But how shall we know that a dream is such while we continue therein What is a dream To give a gross and superficial, not a philosophical, account of it: It is a series of persons and things presented to our mind in sleep, which have no being but in our own imagination. A dream, therefore, is a kind of digression from our real life. It seems to be a sort of echo of what was said or done a little when we were awake. Or, may we say, a dream is a fragment of life, broken off at both ends; not connected either with the part that goes before, or with that which follows after And is there any better way of distinguishing our dreams from our waking thoughts, than by this very circumstance It is a kind of parenthesis, inserted in life, as that is in a discourse, which goes on equally well either with it or without it. By this then we may infallibly know a dream, -- by its being broken off at both ends; by its having no proper connection with the real things which either precede or follow it. 6. It is not needful to prove that there is a near resemblance between these transient dreams, and the dream of life. It may be of more use to illustrate this important truth; to place it in as striking a light as possible. Let us then seriously consider, in a few obvious particulars, the case of one that is just awaking out of life, and opening his eyes in eternity.

14. This we know, concerning the whole frame and arrangement of the visible world. But how exceeding little do we now know concerning the invisible! And we should have known still less of it, had it not pleased the Author of both worlds to give us more than natural light, to give us "his word to be a lantern to our feet, and a light in all our paths." And holy men of old, being assisted by his Spirit, have discovered many particulars of which otherwise we should have had no conception. 15. And without revelation, how little certainty of invisible things did the wisest of men obtain! The small glimmerings of light which they had were merely conjectural. At best they were only a faint, dim twilight, delivered from uncertain tradition; and so obscured by heathen fables, that it was but one degree better than utter darkness. 16. How uncertain the best of these conjectures was, may easily be gathered from their own accounts. The most finished of all these accounts, is that of the great Roman poet. Where observe how warily he begins, with that apologetic preface, -- Sit mihi fas audita loqui -- "May I be allowed to tell what I have heard" And, in the conclusion, lest anyone should imagine he believed any of these accounts, he sends the relater of them out of hades by the ivory gate, through which, he had just informed us, that only dreams and shadows pass, -- a very plain intimation, that all which has gone before, is to be looked upon as a dream! 17. How little regard they had for all these conjectures, with regard to the invisible world, clearly appears from the words of his brother poet; who affirms, without any scruple, -- Esse aliquos manes, et subterranea regna Nec pueri credunt. "That there are ghosts, or realms below, not even a man [boy] of them now believes."

The Deceitfulness Of The Human Heart "The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it" Jer. 17:9. 1. The most eminent of the ancient Heathens have left us many testimonies of this. It was indeed their common opinion that there was a time when men in general were virtuous and happy; this they termed the "golden age." And the account of this was spread through almost all nations. But it was likewise generally believed that this happy age had expired long ago; and that men are now in the midst of the "iron age." At the commencement of this, says the poet, -- Irumpit venae pejoris in aeuum Omne nefas: fugere pudor, verumque, fidesque In quorum subiere locum, fraudesque, dolique Insidiaeque, et vis, et amor sceleratus habendi. Immediately broke in, With a full tide, all wickedness and sin: Shame, truth, fidelity, swift fled away; And cursed thirst of gold bore unresisted sway. 2. But how much more knowing than these old Pagans are the present generation of Christians! How many laboured panegyrics do we now read and hear on the Dignity of Human Nature. One eminent preacher, in one of his sermons, preached and printed a few years ago, does not scruple to affirm, First, that men in general (if not every individual) are very wise; Secondly, that men in general are very virtuous; and Thirdly, that they are very happy: And I do not know that anyone yet has been so hardy as to controvert the assertion.

7. Did that right honourable wretch, compared to whom Sir R[obert] was a saint, know the heart of man, -- he that so earnestly advised his own son, "never to speak the truth, to lie or dissemble as often as he speaks, to wear a mask continually" that earnestly counselled him, "not to debauch single women," (because some inconveniences might follow,) "but always married women" Would one imagine this grovelling animal ever had a wife or a married daughter of his own O rare Lord C[hesterfield]! Did ever man so well deserve, though he was a Peer of the realm, to die by the side of Newgate Or did ever book so well deserve to be burned by the common hangman, as his Letters Did Mr. David Hume, lower, if possible, than either of the former, know the heart of man No more than a worm or a beetle does. After "playing so idly with the darts of death," do you now find it a laughing matter What think you now of Charon Has he ferried you over Styx At length he has taught you to know a little of your own heart! At length you know it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God! 8. One of the ablest champions of infidelity (perhaps the most elegant, and the most decent writer that ever produced a system of religion without being in the least obliged to the Bible for it) breaks out in the fullness of his heart: "Who would not wish that there was full proof of the Christian revelation, since it is undoubtedly the most benevolent system that ever appeared in the world!" Might he not add a reason of another kind, -- Because without this man must be altogether a mystery to himself Even with the help of Revelation, he knows exceeding little; but without it, he would know abundantly less, and nothing with any certainty. Without the light which is given us by the oracles of God, how could we reconcile his greatness with his meanness While we acknowledged, with Sir John Davies, -- I know my soul has power to know all things, Yet is she blind, and ignorant of all: I know I'm one of nature's little kings; Yet to the least and vilest things in thrall.

4. But there are those who are conscious before God that they are rich. And, doubtless, some among you are of the number. You have more of the goods of this world than is needful either for yourself or your family. Let each consider for himself. Do your riches increase Do not you understand that plain expression Have you not more money, or more of money's worth, than you had ten or twenty years ago, or at this time last year If you keep any account, you can easily know this. Indeed you ought to know; otherwise, you are not a good steward, even in this respect, of the mammon of unrighteousness. And every man, whether engaged in trade or not, ought to know whether his substance lessens or increases. 5. But many have found out a way never to be rich, though their substance increase ever so much. It is this: As fast as ever money comes in, they lay it out, either in land, or enlarging their business. By this means, each of these, keeping himself bare of money, can still say, "I am not rich;" yea, though he has ten, twenty, a hundred times more substance than he had some years ago. This may be explained by a recent case: A gentleman came to a merchant in London, a few years since, and told him, "Sir, I beg you will give me a guinea for a worthy family that is in great distress." He replied, "Really, Mr. M., I cannot well afford to give you it just now; but if you will call upon me when I am worth ten thousand pounds, upon such an occasion I will give you ten guineas." Mr. M., after some time, called upon him again, and said, "Sir, I claim your promise; now you are worth ten thousand pounds." He replied, "That is very true: But I assure you, I cannot spare one guinea so well as I could then."

I. 1. Let us inquire, First, what they suffer; and, afterwards, What is the cause of these sufferings That the people suffer, none can deny; -- that they are afflicted in a more than ordinary manner. Thousands and tens of thousands are at this day deeply afflicted through want of business. It is true that this want is in some measure removed in some large and opulent towns. But it is also true, that this is far, very far, from being the general case of the kingdom. Nothing is more sure than that thousands of people in the west of England, throughout Cornwall in particular, in the north, and even in the midland counties, are totally unemployed. Hence those who formerly wanted nothing, are now in want of all things. They are so far from the plenty they once enjoyed that they are in the most deplorable distress, deprived not only of the conveniences, but most of the necessaries of life. I have seen not a few of these wretched creatures, within little more than an hundred miles of London, standing in the streets with pale looks, hollow eyes, and meager limbs; or creeping up and down like walking shadows. I have known families, who a few years ago lived in an easy, genteel manner, reduced to just as much raiment as they had on, and as much food as they could gather in the field. To this one or other of them repaired once a day, to pick up the turnips which the cattle had left; which they boiled, if they could get a few sticks, or otherwise ate them raw. Such is the want of food to which many of our countrymen are at this day reduced by want of business!

7. Plenty declined in the same proportion as wealth, till universal scarcity took place. In a short time there was everywhere felt a deep want, not only of the superfluities, not only of the common conveniences, but even of the necessaries, of life. Wholesome food was not to be procured but at a very advanced price. Decent apparel was not to be had, not even in the large towns. Not only velvets, and silks, and fashionable ornaments, (which might well be spared,), but even linen and woollen clothes, were not to be purchased at any price whatsoever. 8. Thus have we observed each of these wheels apart; -- on the one hand, trade, wealth, pride, luxury, sloth, and wantonness spreading far and wide, through the American provinces; on the other, the spirit of independency diffusing itself from north to south. Let us now observe how each of these wheels relates to, and answers, the other; how the wise and gracious providence of God uses one to check the course of the other, and even employs (if so strong an expression may be allowed) Satan to cast out Satan. Probably, that subtle spirit hoped, by adding to all those other vices the spirit of independency, to have overturned the whole work of God, as well as the British Government, in North-America. But he that sitteth in heaven laughed him to scorn, and took the wise in his own craftiness. By means of this very spirit, there is reason to believe, God will overturn every hindrance of that work.

6. And even as to the hours assigned for study, are they generally spent to any better purpose Not if they are employed in reading (as is too common) plays, novels, or idle tales, which naturally tend to increase our inbred corruption, and heat the furnace of our unholy desires seven times hotter than it was before How little preferable is the laborious idleness of those who spend day after day in gaming or diversions, vilely casting away that time the value of which they cannot know, till they are passed through it into eternity! 7. Know ye not then so much as this, you that are called moral men, that all idleness is immorality; that there is no grosser dishonesty than sloth; that every voluntary blockhead is a knave He defrauds his benefactors, his parents, and the world; and robs both God and his own soul. Yet how many of these are among us! How many lazy drones, as if only fruges consumere nati! "born to eat up the produce of the soil." How many whose ignorance is not owing to incapacity, but to mere laziness! How few, (let it not seem immodest that even such a one as I should touch on that tender point,) of the vast number who have it in their power, are truly learned men Not to speak of the other eastern tongues, who is there that can be said to understand Hebrew Might I not say, or even Greek A little of Homer or Xenophon we may still remember; but how few can readily read or understand so much as a page of Clemens Alexandrinus, Chrysostom, or Ephrem Syrus And as to philosophy, (not to mention mathematics, or the abstruser branches of it,) how few do we find who have laid the foundation, -- who are masters even of logic; who thoroughly understand so much as the rules of syllogizing; the very doctrine of the moods and figures! O what is so scarce as learning, save religion!

10. It will be objected, perhaps, that "these are but little things." Nay, but perjury is not a little thing; nor, consequently, the wilful breach of any rule which we have solemnly sworn to observe. Surely those who speak thus have forgotten those words: "Thou shalt pledge thy faith to observe all the statutes of this University. So help thee God, and the holy Inspired Gospels of Christ!" (P. 229.) 11. But is this oath sufficiently considered by those who take it; or any of those prescribed by public authority Is not this solemn act of religion, the calling God to record on our souls, commonly treated as a slight thing in particular by those who swear by the living God, that "neither entreaties nor reward, neither hatred nor friendship, neither hope nor fear, induce them to give a testimony to any unworthy person" (P. 88;) and by those who swear, "I know this person to be meet and fit in morals and knowledge for that high degree to which he is presented" (P. 114.) 12. Yet one thing more. We have all testified before God, "that all and every the Articles of our Church, as also the Book of Common Prayer, and the ordaining of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are agreeable to the word of God." And, in so doing, we have likewise testified, "that both the First and the Second Book of Homilies doth contain godly and wholesome doctrine." But upon what evidence have many of us declared this Have we not affirmed the thing we know not. If so, however true they may happen to be, we are found false witnesses before God. Have the greater part of us ever used any means to know whether these things are so or not Have we ever, for one hour, seriously considered the Articles to which we have subscribed If not, how shamefully do we elude the design of the very compilers, who compiled them "to remove difference of opinion, and to establish unanimity in the true religion!"

If any species of this unprofitable passion be more particularly useless than the rest, it is that which we feel when we sorrow for the dead. We destroy the health of our body, and impair the strength of our minds, and take no price for those invaluable blessings; we give up our present, without any prospect of future, advantage; without any probability of either recalling them hither, or profiting them where they are. As it is an indifferent proof of our wisdom, it is still a worse of our affection for the dead. It is the property of envy, not of love, to repine at another's happiness; to weep, because all tears are wiped from their eyes. Shall it disturb us, who call ourselves his friends, that a weary wanderer has at length come to his wished-for home Nay, weep we rather for ourselves, who still want that happiness; even to whom that rest appeareth yet in prospect. Gracious is our God and merciful, who, knowing what is in man, that passion, when it has conquered reason, always takes the appearance of it, lest we should be misled by this appearance, adds the sanction of his unerring commands to the natural dictates of our own understanding. The judgment, perhaps, might be so clouded by passion, as to think it reasonable to be profuse in our sorrow at parting from a beloved object; but Revelation tells us, that all occurrences of life must be borne with patience and moderation, -- otherwise we lay a greater weight on our own souls than external accidents can do without our concurrence, with humility, -- because from the offended justice of God we might well have expected he would have inflicted much worse, and with resignation, -- because we know, whatsoever happens is for our good; and although it were not, we are not able to contend with, and should not therefore provoke, Him that is stronger than we.

Against this fault, which is inconsistent with those virtues, and, therefore, tacitly forbidden in the precepts that enjoin them, St. Paul warns us in express words: "I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep; that ye sorrow not, even as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also who sleep in Jesus will God bring with him: -- Wherefore, comfort one another with these words." (1 Thess. 4:13, 14, 18.) And these, indeed, are the only words which can give lasting comfort to a spirit whom such an occasion hath wounded. Why should I be so unreasonable, so unkind, as to desire the return of a soul now in happiness to me, -- to this habitation of sin and misery; since I know that the time will come, yea, is now at hand, when, in spite of the great gulf fixed between us, I shall shake off these chains and go to him What he was, I am both unable to paint in suitable colours, and unwilling to attempt it. Although the chief; at least the most common, argument for those laboured encomiums on the dead, which for many years have so much prevailed among us, is, that there can be no suspicion of flattery; yet we all know, that the pulpit, on those occasions, has been so frequently prostituted to those servile ends, that it is now no longer capable of serving them. Men take it for granted, that what is there said are words of course; that the business of the speaker is to describe the beauty, not the likeness, of the picture; and, so it be only well drawn, he cares not whom it resembles: In a word, that his business is to show his own wit, not the generosity of his friend, by giving him all the virtues he can think on.

It was such ingratitude as this in the Jews, after numberless experiences of his extraordinary mercies towards them, that made infinite love, at last, turn in bitterness to reward them according to their doings; as we find the account given by the Prophets, in the most affecting and lively manner. And surely, considering the much greater obligations he hath laid on us, who enjoy the highest privileges, we may be sure that our sinful and untoward behaviour will, at last, be as great as the mercies we have abused. There is no doubt but God observes all the sons of men, and his wrath abides on every worker of iniquity. But it is the unfaithful professor who has known his pardoning love, that grieves his Holy Spirit; which implies a peculiar baseness in our sins. A man may be provoked, indeed, by the wrongs of his enemy; but he is properly grieved by the offences of his friend. And, therefore, besides our other obligations, our very near relation to God, as being his friends and children, would, if we had a spark of gratitude in our souls, be a powerful restraint upon us, in preserving us from evil. 3. But if arguments of this kind are not strong enough to keep us from grieving our best Friend, the Holy Spirit of God, let us consider, that, by this ungrateful conduct, we shall provoke him to withdraw from us. The truth of this, almost all who have ever tasted of the good gifts of the Holy Spirit must have experienced. It is to be hoped that we have had, some time or other, so lively a sense of his holy influence upon us, as that when we have been so unhappy as to offend him, we could easily perceive the change in our souls, in that darkness, distress, and despondency which more especially follow the commission of wilful and presumptuous sins. At those seasons, the blessed Spirit retired and concealed his presence from us, we were justly left to a sense of our own wretchedness and misery, till we humbled ourselves before the Lord, and by deep repentance and active faith obtained a return of divine mercy and peace.

The First I shall mention, as being more especially grievous to the Holy Spirit, is inconsiderateness and inadvertence to his holy motions within us. There is a particular frame and temper of soul, a sobriety of mind, without which the Spirit of God will not concur in the purifying of our hearts. It is in our power, through his preventing and assisting grace, to prepare this in ourselves; and he expects we should, this being the foundation of all his after-works. Now, this consists in preserving our minds in a cool and serious disposition, in regulating and calming our affections, and calling in and checking the inordinate pursuits of our passions after the vanities and pleasures of this world; the doing of which is of such importance, that the very reason why men profit so little under the most powerful means, is, that they do not look enough within themselves, they do not observe and watch the discords and imperfections of their own spirit nor attend with care to the directions and remedies which the Holy Spirit is always ready to suggest. Men are generally lost in the hurry of life, in the business or pleasures of it, and seem to think that their regeneration, their new nature, will spring and grow up within them, with as little care and thought of their own as their bodies were conceived and have attained their full strength and stature; whereas, there is nothing more certain than that the Holy Spirit will not purify our nature, unless we carefully attend to his motions, which are lost upon us while, in the Prophet's language, we "scatter away our time," -- while we squander away our thoughts upon unnecessary things, and leave our spiritual improvement, the one thing needful, quite unthought of and neglected.

Besides this, the Holy Spirit within us is the security of our salvation; he is likewise an earnest of it, and assures our spirits that we have a title to eternal happiness. "The Spirit of God beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God." And in order that this inward testimony may be lively and permanent, it is absolutely necessary to attend carefully to the secret operation of the Holy Spirit within us; who, by infusing his holy consolations into our souls, by enlivening our drooping spirits, and giving us a quick relish of his promises, raises bright and joyous sensations in us, and gives a man, beforehand, a taste of the bliss to which he is going. In this sense, God is said, by the Apostle to the Corinthians, to have "sealed us, and to have given the earnest of his Spirit in our hearts;" and that earnest, not only by way of confirmation of our title to happiness, but as an actual part of that reward at present, the fulness of which we expect hereafter.

On the Holy Spirit "Now the Lord is that Spirit." 2 Cor. 3:17 The Apostle had been showing how the gospel ministry was superior to that of the law: The time being now come when types and shadows should be laid aside, and we should be invited to our duty by the manly and ingenuous motives of a clear and full revelation, open and free on God's part, and not at all disguised by his ambassadors. But what he chiefly insists upon is, not the manner, but the subject of their ministry: "Who hath made us able ministers," saith he, "of the New Testament: Not of the letter, but of the Spirit: For the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." Here lies the great difference between the two dispensations: That the law was indeed spiritual in its demands, requiring a life consecrated to God in the observance of many rules; but, not conveying spiritual assistance, its effect was only to kill and mortify man, by giving him to understand, that he must needs be in a state of great depravity, since he found it so difficult to obey God; and that, as particular deaths were by that institution inflicted for particular sins, so death, in general, was but the consequence of his universal sinfulness. But the ministration of the New Testament was that of a "Spirit which giveth life;" -- a Spirit, not only promised, but actually conferred; which should both enable Christians now to live unto God, and fulfil precepts even more spiritual than the former; and restore them hereafter to perfect life, after the ruins of sin and death. The incarnation, preaching, and death of Jesus Christ were designed to represent, proclaim, and purchase for us this gift of the Spirit; and therefore says the Apostle, "The Lord is that Spirit," or the Spirit.

Yet this is not the whole that is implied in man's sin. For he is not only inclined himself to all the sottishness of appetite, and all the pride of reason, but he is fallen under the tutorage of the evil one, who mightily furthers him in both. The state he was at first placed in, was a state of the most simple subjection to God, and this entitled him to drink of his Spirit; but when he, not content to be actually in Paradise, under as full a light of God's countenance as he was capable of; must know good and evil, and be satisfied upon rational grounds whether it was best for him to be as he was, or not; when, disdaining to be directed as a child, he must weigh every thing himself; and seek better evidence than the voice of his Maker and the seal of the Spirit in his heart; then he not only obeyed, but became like to, that eldest son of pride, and was unhappily entitled to frequent visits, or rather a continued influence, from him. As life was annexed to his keeping the command, and, accordingly, that Spirit, which alone could form it unto true life, dwelt in his body; so, being sentenced to death for his transgression, he was now delivered unto "him who has the power of death, that, is, the devil," whose hostile and unkindly impressions promote death and sin at once.

True believers, then, are entered upon a life, the sequel of which they know not; for it is "a life hid with Christ in God." He, the forerunner, hath attained the end of it, being gone unto the Father; but we can know no more of it than appeared in him while he was upon earth. And even that, we shall not know but by following his steps; which if we do, we shall be so strengthened and renewed day by day in the inner man, that we shall desire no comfort from the present world through a sense of "the joy set before us;" though, as to the outward man, we shall be subject to distresses and decays, and treated as the offscouring of all things. Well may a man ask his own heart, whether it is able to admit the Spirit of God. For where that divine Guest enters, the laws of another world must be observed: The body must be given up to martyrdom, or spent in the Christian warfare, as unconcernedly as if the soul were already provided of its house from heaven; the goods of this world must be parted with as freely, as if the last fire were to seize them to-morrow; our neighbour must be loved as heartily as if he were washed from all his sins, and demonstrated to be a child of God by the resurrection from the dead. The fruits of this Spirit must not be mere moral virtues, calculated for the comfort and decency of the present life; but holy dispositions, suitable to the instincts of a superior life already begun. Thus to press forward, whither the promise of life calls him, -- to turn his back upon the world, and comfort himself in God, -- every one that has faith perceives to be just and necessary, and forces himself to do it: Every one that has hope, does it gladly and eagerly, though not without difficulty; but he that has love does it with ease and singleness of heart.

day following ; as he has done five Sundays in six ever since. This much delighted our gay opponents, who increased their number apace ; especially when, shortly after, one of the seniors of the college having been with the Doctor, upon his return from him sent for two young gentlemen severally, who had communicated weekly for some time, and was so successful in his exhortations, that for the future they promised to do it only three times a year. About this time there was a meeting (as one who was present at it informed your son) of several of the officers and senicrs of the college, wherein it was consulted what would be the speediest way to stop the progress of enthusiasm in it. The result we know not, only it was soon publicly reported, that Dr. and the censors were going to blow up The Godly Club. This was now our common title ; though we were sometimes dignified with that of The Enthusiasts, or The Reforming Club.” Part of the answer I received was as follows :-- “Goon Sir,--* A pretty while after the date, yours came to my hand.

Fri. 6.--About eight in the morning, we first set foot on American ground. It was a small uninhabited island, over against Tybee. Mr. Oglethorpe led us to a rising ground, where we all kneeled down to give thanks. He then took boat for Savannah. When the rest of the people were come on shore, we called our little flock together to prayers. Several parts of the Second Lesson (Mark vi,) were wonderfully suited to the occasion ; in particular, the account of the courage and sufferings of John the Baptist; our Lord’s directions to the first preachers of his Gospel, and their toiling at sea, and deliverance ; with these comfortable words, “It is I, be not afraid.” Sat. '7.--Mr. Oglethorpe returned from Savannah with Mr. Spangenberg, one of the pastors of the Germans. I soon found what spirit he was of; and asked his advice with regard to my own conduct. He said, ‘“‘ My brother, I must first ask you one or two questions. Have you the witness within yourself? Does the Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit, that you are a child of God?” I was surprised, and knew not what to answer. He observed it, and asked, “* Do you know Jesus Christ?’ J paused, and said, “I know he is the Saviour of the world.” ‘ True,” replied he ; “ but do you know he has saved you ?” I answered, “J hope he has died to save me.” He only added, “ Dc you know yourself?” I said, “Ido.” But 1 fear they were vain words. Mon. 9.--I asked him many questions, both concerning himself and the church at Hernhuth. ‘The substance of his answers was this :-- “« At eighteen years old, I was sent to the university of Jena, where I spent some years in learning languages, and the vain philosophy, which I have now long been labouring to forget. Here it pleased God, by some that preached his word with power, to overturn my heart. [ mumediately threw aside all my learning, but what tended to save my teb. 1736.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 19

Sat. 28.--They met to consult concerning the affairs of their Church: Mr. Spangenberg being shortly to go to Pennsylvania, and Bishop Nitschman to return to Germany. After several hours spent in conference and prayer, they proceeded to the election and ordination of a Bishop. The great simplicity, as well as solemnity, of the whole, almost made me forget the seventeen hundred years between, and imagine myself in one of those assemblies where form and state were not ; but Paul the tent maker, or Peter the fisherman presided ; yet with the demonstration of the Spirit and of power. March, 1736. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL 21 Sun. 29.--Hearing Mr. Oglethorpe did not come any more to Savannah, before he went to Frederica, I was obliged to go down to the ship again, (Mr. Spangenberg following me thither,) and receive his orders and instructions on several heads. From him we went to public prayers ; after which we were refreshed by several letters from England. Upon which I could not but observe, how careful our Lord 1s, to repay whatever we give up on his account. When I left England, I was chiefly afraid of two things : one, that I should never again have so many faithful friends as I left there ; the other, that the spark of love which began to kindle in their hearts would cool and die away. But who knoweth the mercy and power of God? From ten friends I am awhile secluded, and he hath opened me a door into a whole Church. And as to the very persons I left behind, his Spirit has gone forth so much the more, teaching them not to trust in man, but “ in Uim that raised the dead, and calleth the things that are not, as though they were.” About four, having taken leave of Mr. Spangenberg, who was the next morning to set out for Pennsylvania, I returned to Savannah. Sat. March 6.--I had a long conversation with John Reinier, the son of a gentleman, who, being driven out of France, on account of his religion, settled at Vivay, in Switzerland, and practised physic there. His father died while he was a child. Some years after, he told his

Wed. 30.--I hoped a door was opened for going up immediately to the Choctaws, the least polished, that is, the least corrupted, of all the Indian nations. But upon my informing Mr. Oglethorpe of our design, he objected, not only the danger of being intercepted, or killed by the French there ; but much more, the inexpediency of leaving Savannah destitute of a minister. These objections I related to our brethren in the evening, who were all of opinion, “ We ought not to o yet.” ? Thur. July 1.--The Indians had an audience ; and another on Saturday, when Chicali, their head man, dined with Mr. Oglethorpe. After dinner, I asked the grey-headed old man, what he thought he was made for. He said, ** He that.is above knows what he made us for. We anow nothing. Weare inthe dark. But whitemenknow much. And yet white men build great houses, as if they were to live for ever. But white men cannot live for ever. In a little time, white men’will be dust as well as I.” I told him, “If red men will learn the good book, they may know as much as white men. But neither we nor you can understand that book, unless we are taught by Him that is above: and He will not teach, unless you avoid what you already know is not good.” He answered, “I believe that. He will not teach us while our hearts are not white. And our men do what they know is not good: they kill their own children. And our women do what they know is not good: they kill the child before it is born. Therefore, He that is above does not send us the good book.” Hearing the younger of the Miss Boveys was not well, I called upon them this evening. I found she had only the prickly heat, a sort of | rash, very common here in summer. We soon fell into serious conversation, after I had asked, if they did not think they were too young to trouble themselves with religion yet; and, whether they might not defer it ten or a dozen years. To which one of them replied, “If it will be reasonable ten years hence to be religious, it is so now: Iam not for deferring one moment.”

A. We believe the souls of red men walk up and down, near the place where they died, or where their bodies lie; for we have often heard cries and noises near the place where any prisoners had been burned. Q. Where do the souls of white men go after death? A. We cannot tell. We have not seen. Q. Our belief is, that the souls of bad men only walk up and down; but the souls of good men go up. A. I believe so too. But I told you the talk of the nation. (Mr. Andrews. They said at the burying, they knew what you was Journal I.--8 > DP Or OPO 30 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [July, 1736 doing. You was speaking to the beloved ones above, to take up the soul of the young woman. ) Q. We have a book that tells us many things of the beloved ones above; would you be glad to know them? A. We have no time now but to fight. If we should ever be at peace, we should be glad to know. Q. Do you expect ever to know what the white men know? (Mr. Andrews. They told Mr. O., they believe the time will come when the red and white men will be one.) Q. What do the French teach you ? A. The French black kings* never go out. We see you go about; we like that; that is good. Q. How came your nation by the knowledge they have ? A. As soon as ever the ground was sound and fit to stand upon, it came to us, and has been with us ever since. But we are young men; our old men know more: but all of them do not know. There are but a few, whom the beloved one chooses from a child, and is in them, and takes care of them, and teaches them. ‘They know these things; and our old men practise; therefore they know. But I do not practise; therefore I know little.

Thur. Nov. 3.--I appeared again at the court, holden on that day ; and again, at the court held, Tuesday, November 22d. On which day Mr. Causton desired to speak with me. He then read me some affidavits which had been made, September 15th, last past; in one of which it was affirmed, that I then abused Mr. Causton in his own house, calling him liar, villain, and so on. It was now likewise repeated before several persons, which indeed I had forgot, that I had been reprimanded at the last court, for an enemy to, and hinderer of, the public peace. I again consulted my friends, who agreed with me, that the time we looked for was now come. And the next morning calling on Mr. Causton, I told him, I designed to set out for England immediately. I set up an advertisement in the Great Square to the same effect, and quietly prepared for my journey. Fri. Dec. 2.--I proposed to set out for Carolina about noon, the tide then serving. But about ten, the magistrates sent for me, and told me, I must not go out of the province ; for I had not answered the allegations laid against me. I replied, “I have appeared at six or seven courts successively, in order to answer them. But I was not suffered so to do, when I desired it time after time.” Then they said, however, I must not go, unless I would give security to answer those allegations at their court. [asked, “ What security?” After consulting together about two hours, the recorder showed me a kind of bond, engaging me, under a penalty of fifty pounds, to appear at their court when I should be required. He added, “ But Mr. Williamson too has desired of us, that you should give bail to answer his action.” I then told him plainly, “ Sir, you use me very ill, and so you do the Trustees. [I will give neither any bond, nor any bail at all. You know your business, and I know mine.”

Sun. 18.--I was seized with a violent flux, which I felt came not before I wanted it. Yet I had strength enough given to preach once more to this careless people; and a few “believed our report.” Thur. 22.--I took my leave of America, (though, if it please God, aot for ever,) going on board the Samuel, Captain Percy, with a young gentleman who had been a few months in Carolina, one of my parishioners of Savannah, and a Frenchman, late of Purrysburg, who was escaped thence with the skin of his teeth. Sat. 24.--We sailed over Charlestown bar, and about noon lost sight of land. The next day the wind was fair, but high, as it was on Sunday, 25, when the sea affected me more than it had done in the sixteen weeks of our passage to America. I was obliged to lie down the greatest part of the day, being easy only in that posture. Mon. 26.--I began instructing a negro lad in the principles of Christianity. The next day I resolved to break off living delicately, and return to my old simplicity of diet; and after I did so, neither my stomach nor my head much complained of the motion of the ship. Wed. 28.--Finding the unaccountable apprehensions of I know not what danger, (the wind being small and the sea smooth,) which had been upon me several days, increase, I cried earnestly for help; and it pleased God, as in a moment to restore peace to my soul. Let me observe hereon, 1. That not one of these hours ought to pass out of my remembrance, till I attain another manner of spirit, a spirit equally willing to glorify God by life or by death. 2. That whoever is uneasy on any account (bodily pain alone excepted) carries in himselt his own conviction, that he is so far an unbeliever. Is he uneasy at the apprehension of death? Then he believeth not, that “to die is gain.” At any of the events of life? Then he hath not a firm belief, that ‘all things work together for” his “ good.” And if he bring the matter more close, he will always find, beside the general want of faith, every particular uneasiness is evidently owing to the want of some particular Christian temper.

Sat. 28.--Was another cloudy day; but about ten in the morning (the wind continuing southerly) the clouds began to fly just contrary to the wind, and, to the surprise of us all, sunk down under the sun, so that at noon we had an exact observation; and by this we found we were as well as we could desire, about eleven leagues south of Scilly. Sun. 29.--We saw English land once more; which, about noon, appeared to be the Lizard Point. We ran by it with a fair wind; and at noon, the next day, made the west end of the Isle of Wight. Here the wind turned against us, and in the evening blew fresh, so that we expected (the tide being likewise strong against us) to be driven some leagues backward in the night: but in the morning, to our great surprise, we saw Beachy-head, just before us, and found we had gone forward near forty miles. Ve aN OT alts hE ae hh \ 56 * REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Feb. 1738. Toward evening was a calm; but in the night a strong north wind brought us safe into the Downs. The day before, Mr. Whitefield had sailed out, neither of us then knowing anv thing of the other. At four in the morning we took boat, and in half an hour landed at Deal: it being Wednesday, February 1, the anniversary festival in Georgia for Mr. Oglethorpe’s landing there. It is now two years and almost four months since I left my native country, in order to teach the Georgian Indians the nature of Christianity : but what have I learned myself in the mean time ? Why, (what ! the least of all suspected,) that I who went to America to convert others, was never myself converted to God. (I am not sure of this.) ‘I am not mad,” though I thus speak ; but “I speak the words of truth and soberness ;” if haply some of those who still dream may awake, and see, that as I am, so are they.

An hour after, we were overtook by an elderly gentleman, who said he was going to enter his son at Oxford. We asked, “ At what college?” He said he did not know: having no acquaintance there on whose recommendation he could depend. After some conversation, he expressed a deep sense of the good providence of God; and told us, he knew God had cast us in his way, in answer to his prayer. In the evening we reached Oxford, rejoicing in our having received so many fresh instances of that great truth, “In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.” Thur. 23.--I met Peter Bohler again, who now amazed me more and more, by the account he gave of the fruits of living faith,--the hoiiness and happiness which he affirmed to attend it. The next morning I began the Greek Testament again, resolving to abide by .“ the law and the testimony ;” and being confident, that God would hereby show me, whether this doctrine was of God. Sun. 26.--]J preached at Whitam, on “ the new creature,” and went m the evening to a society in Oxford, where, (as my manne then was April, 1738. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 65 at all societies,) after using a collect or two and the Lord’s Prayer, I expounded a chapter in the New Testament, and concluded with three or four more collects and a psalm. Mon. 27.--Mr. Kinchin went with me to the Castle, where, after reading prayers, and preaching on, “ It is appointed unto men once to die,” we prayed with the condemned man, first in several forms of prayer, and then in such words as were given us in that hour. He kneeled down in much heaviness and confusion, having “ no rest in” his “ bones, by reason of” his “sins.” After a space he rose up, and eagerly said, “‘ 1 am now ready to die. I know Christ has taken away my sins ; oad there is no more condemnation for me.” The same composed cheerfulness he showed, when he was carried to execution: and in his last moments he was the same, enjoying a perfect pee in cove fidence that he was “accepted in the Beloved.”

I then recollected what Peter Bohler had often said upon this head, which was to this effect :-- . When a man has living faith in Christ, then is he justified : . This is always given in a moment ; . And in that moment he has'peace with God; . Which he cannot have without knowing that he has it: . And being born of God, he sinneth not : . Which deliverance from sin he cannot have without knowing that he has it. Sat. 15.--Was the Intercession day, when many strangers were present from different parts. On Monday, 17, having stayed here ten days longer than I intended, (my first design being only to rest one or two days,) I proposed setting out for Hernhuth; but Mr. Ingham desiring me to stay a little longer, I stayed till Wednesday, 19, when Mr. Hauptman, (a native of Dresden,) Mr. Brown, and I set out together.

“ And now first it was that I had that full assurance of my own recon ciliation to God, through Christ. For many years I had had the forgiveness of my sins, and a measure of the peace of God; but I had not till now that witness of his Spirit, which shuts out all doubt and fear. In all my trials I had always a confidence in Christ, who had done so great things for me. But it was a confidence mixed with fear: I was afraid I had not done enough. There was always something dark in my soul till now. But now the clear light shined; and I saw that what I had hitherto so constantly insisted on,--the dowmg so much and feeling so much, the long repentance and preparation for believing, the bitter sorrow for sin, and that deep contrition of heart which is fsund in some,--were by no means essential to justification. Yea, that wnerever the free grace of God is rightly preached, a sinrer in the full career of his sins will probably receive it, and be justified by it, before one who insists en such previous preparation. “ At my return to Hernhuth I found it difficult at first te make my brethren sensible of this, or to persuade them not to insist on the assurance of faith, as a necessary qualification for receiving the Lord’s Supper. But from the time they were convinced, which is now three years since, we have all chiefly insisted on Christ given for us. (I dare not say this is right:) this we urge as the principal thing, which if we rightly believe, Christ will surely be formed in us. And this preaching we have always found to be accompanied with power, and to have the blessing of God following it. By this, believers receive a steady purpose of heart, and a more unshaken resolution, to endure with a free and cheerful spirit whatsoever our Lord is pleased to lay upon them.” a Aug. 1738. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 91 The same day I was with Micuazi Linner, the eldest of the Church ; the sum of whose conversation was this :--

“Indeed the leading of the Spirit is different in different souls. His more usual method, I believe, is, to give, in one and the same moment, the forgiveness of sins, and a full assurance of that forgiveness. Yet in many he works as he did in me: giving first the remission of sins, and, after some weeks or months or years, the full assurance of it.” This great truth was further confirmed to me the next day by the conversation I had with Davin Nitrscuman, one of the teachers or pastors of the church ; who expressed himself to this effect :-- “In my childhood I was very serious; but as I grew up, was so careless, that at eighteen years old I had even forgot to read. WhenI found this, I was startled. I soon learned again, and then spent much time in reading and prayer. But I knew nothing of my heart, till about the age of twenty-six, I bought a Bible, and began to read the New Testament. The further I read the more I was condemned. I found a law which I did not, could not keep. I had a will to avoid all sin; but the power I had not. I continually strove; but was continually conquered. The thing which I would, I did not; but what I would not have done, that 1 did. In this bondage I was, when I fell into a fit of sickness; during my recovery from which, I felt a stronger desire than ever to avoid all sin. At the same time I felt the power. And sin no longer reigned over me. “But soon after I fell into grievous temptations, which made me very uneasy. For though I yielded not to them, yet they returned again, and again, as fast as they were conquered. Then it came into my mind, ‘I take all this pains to serve God. What, if there be no God? HowdolI know there is?’ And on this I mused more and more, till I said in my heart, ‘ There is no God’ { 92 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ Aug. 1738.

* N.B. That is, in the year 1737. Several years before which, he was elected one of the four public teachers of the Church; which office he retains to this dw. Now which of the two consequences will you choose, (for one or the other is unavoidable,) either that a man may preach the Gospel (yea, and with the demonstration of the Spirit) who has no faith: or that a man who has a degree of true faith, may yet have doubts and fears ? ~~ Aug. 1738.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 93 more clear to me by the account I received in the afternoon from a student at Hernhuth, Arsinus Turoporus Freprr :-- “J,” said he, “for three years fought against sin with all my might, by fasting and prayer, and all the other means of grace. But notwithstanding all my endeavours, I gained no ground; sin still prevailed over me; till at last, not knowing what to do further, I was on the very brink of despair. Then it was, that, having no other refuge left, I fled to my Saviour as one lost and undone, and that had no hope but in his power and free mercy. In that moment I found my heart at rest, in good hope that my sins were forgiven; of which I had a stronger assurance six weeks after, when I received the Lord’s Supper here. But I dare not affirm, Iam a child of God; neither have I the seal of the Spirit. Yet I go on quietly doing my Saviour’s will, taking shelter in his wounds, from all trouble and sin, and knowing he will perfect his work in his own time.

Sun. 19.--I only preached in the afternoon, at the Castle. On Monday night I was greatly troubled in dreams; and about eleven o’clock, waked in an unaccountable consternation, without being able to sleep again. About that time, (as I found in the morning,) one who had been designed to be my pupil, but was not, came into the Porter’s lodge, (where several persons were sitting,) with a pistol in his hand. He presented this, as in sport, first at one, and then at another. He then attempted twice or thrice to shoot himself; but it would not go off. Upon his laying it down, one took it up, and blew out the priming. He was very angry, went and got fresh prime, came in again, sat down, beat the flint with his key, and about twelve, pulling off his hat and wig, said he would die like a gentleman, and shot himseif through the head. Thur. 23.--Returning from preaching at the Castle, I met once more with my old companion in affliction, C. D. ; who stayed with me till Monday. His last conversation with me was as follows :-- “Jn this you are better than you was at Savannah. You know that you was then quite wrong. But you are not right yet. You know that you was then blind. But you do not see now. I doubt not but God will bring you to the right foundation; but I have no hope for you, while you are on your present foundation: itis as different from the true, as the right hand from the left. You have all to begin anew. I have observed all your words and actions; and I see you are of the same spirit still. You have a simplicity; but it is a simplicity of your own: it is not the simplicity of Christ. You think you do not trust in your own works; but you do trust in your own-works. You do not believe in Christ. You have a present freedom from sin; but it is only a temporary suspension of it, not a deliverance from it. And you have a peace; but it is not a true peace: if death were to approach, you would find all your fears return. But JI am forbid to say any more. My heart sinks in me like a stone.” /

“ My pear Frmnp wHom I Love In THE Truru,--I know my Saviour’s voice, and my heart burns with love and desire to follow him in the regeneration. I have no confidence in the flesh. I loathe myself, and love him only. My dear brother, my spirit even at this moment rejoices in God my Saviour; and the love which is shed abroad in my heart by the Holy Ghost, destroys all self-love; so that I could lay down my life for my brethren. I know that my Redeemer liveth, and have confidence toward God, that through his blood my sins are forgiven. He hath begotten me of his own will, and saves me from sin, so that it has no dominion ‘over me. His Spirit bears witness with my spirit, that I am his child by adoption and grace. And this is not for works of righteousness which I have done. For I am his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works: so that all boasting is excluded. It is now about eighteen years since Jesus took possession of my heart. He then opened my eyes, and said unto me, ‘Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee.’ My dear friend, bear with my relating after what manner I was born of God. It was an instantaneous act. My whole heart was filled with a divine power, drawing all the faculties of my soul after Christ, which continued three or four nights and days. It was as a mighty rushing wind, coming into the soul, enabling me from that moment to be more than conqueror over those corruptions which before I was alwaysaslave to. Since that time the whole bent of my will hath been toward him day and night, even in my dreams. I know that I dwell in Christ, and Christ in me; I am bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh. That you, and all that wait for his appearing, may find the consolation of Israel, is the earnest prayer of “ Your affectionate brother in Christ, “WwW. F.” “ae i ao Dec. 1738. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. ‘115

“You must think what a transport of joy I was then in, when I that was lost and undone, dropping into hell, felt a Redeemer come, who is ‘mighty to save, to save unto the uttermost.’ Yet I did not receive the witness of the Spirit at that time. But in about half an hour the devil came with great power to tempt me. However, I minded him not, but went in and lay down pretty much composed in my mind. Now St. Paul says, ‘ After ye believed, ye were sealed with the Spirit of promise.’ So it was with me. After I had believed on Him that ‘justifieth the ungodly,’ I received that seal of the Spirit, which is the ‘ earnest of our inheritance.’

Tues. May 1.--Many were offended again, and, indeed, much more than before. For at Baldwin-street my voice could scarce be heard amidst the groanings of some, and the cries of others calling aloud to Him that is “mighty to save.” I desired all that were sincere of heart, to beseech with me the Prince exalted for us, that he would “ proclaim deliverance to the captives.” And he soon showed that he heard our voice. Many of those who had been long in darkness, saw the dawn of a great light ; and ten persons, I afterward found, then began to say in faith, “ My Lord and my God.” A Quaker who stood by, was not a little displeased at the dissimulation of those creatures, and was biting his lips and knitting his brows, when he dropped down.as thunderstruck. The agony he was in was even terrible to behold. We besought God not to lay folly to his charge. And he soon lifted up his head and cried aloud, ‘* Now I know thou art a prophet of the Lord.” Wed. 2.--At Newgate another mourner was comforted. I was desired to step thence to a neighbouring house, to see a letter wrote against me, as a “deceiver of the people,” by teaching that God ‘willeth all men to be saved.” One who long had asserted the contrary was there, when a young woman came in (who could say before, “I know that my Redeemer liveth”) all in tears, and in deep anguish of spirit. She said, she had been reasoning with herself, how these things could be, till she was perplexed more and more; and she now found the Spirit of God was departed from her. We began to pray, and she cried out, “He is come! He is come! I again rejoice in God my Saviour.” Just as we rose from giving thanks, another person reeled four or five steps, and then dropped down. We prayed with her, and left her strongly convinced of sin, and earnestly groaning for deliverance.

Wed. 13.--In the morning I came to London; and after receiving the holy communion at Islington, I had once more an opportunity of seeing my mother, whom I had not seen since my return from Germany. I cannot but mention an odd circumstance here. I had read her a paper in June last year, containing a short account of what had passed in my own soul, till within a few days of that time. She greatly approved it, and said, she heartily blessed God, who had brought me to so just a way of thinking. While I was in Germany, a copy of that paper was sent (without my knowledge) to one of my relations. He sent an account of it to my mother ; whom I now found under strange fears concerning me, being convinced “ by an account taken from one of my own papers, vhat I had greatly erred from the faith.” I could not conceive what paper that should be; but, on inquiry, found it was the same I had read her myself.--How hard is it to form a true judg ment of any person or thing from the account of a prejudiced relater ! yea, though he be ever so honest a man: for he who gave this relation, was one of unquestionable veracity. And yet by his sincere account of a writing which lay before his eyes, was the truth so totally disguised, that my mother knew not the paper she had heard from end to end, nor I that [ had myself wrote. At six I warned the women at Fetter-lane, (knowing how they had been lately shaken,) ‘not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits, whether they were of God.” Our brethren met at eight, when it pleased God to remove many misunderstandings and offences that had crept in among them ; and to restore in good measure “ the spirit of love and of a sound mind.”

Fri. 22.--I called on one who “ did run well,” till he was hindered by some of those called French prophets. “ Wo unto the prophets, saith the Lord, who prophesy in my name, and I have not sent them.” At Weaver’s Hall, I endeavoured to point them out; and earnestly exhorted all that followed after holiness, to avoid, as fire, all who do not speak according “ to the Law and Testimony.” In the afternoon I preached at the Fish Ponds; but had no life or spirit in me; and was much in doubt, whether God would not lay me aside, and send other labourers into his harvest. 1 came to the society full of this thought ; and began, in much weakness, to explain, “ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God.” I told them, they were not to judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by common report, or by their own inward feelings: no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revelations, supposed to be made to their souls; any more than by their tears, or any involuntary effects wrought upon their bodies. I warned them, all these were, in themselves, of a doubtful, disputable nature; they might oe from God, and they might not ; and were therefore not simply to be relied on, (any more than simply to be condemned,) but to be tried by a further rule, to be brought to the only certain test, the Law and the Testimony. While I was speaking, one before me dropped down as dead, and presently a second and athird. Five others sunk down in half an hour, most of whom were in violent agonies. ‘The pains” as ‘of hell came about them; the snares of death overtook them.” In their trouble we called upon the Lord, and he gave us an answer of peace. One indeed continued an hour in strong pain; and one or two more for three days. But the rest were greatly comforted in that hour, and went away rejoicing and praising God.

“7, These are some of those inward fruits of the Spirit, which must be felt wheresoever they are ; and without these, I cannot learn from Holy Writ that any man is ‘ born of the Spirit.’ I beseech you, sir, by the mercies of God, that if as yet you know nothing of such inward feelings, if you do not ‘feel in yourself these mighty workings of the Snirit of Christ,’ at least you would not contradict and blaspheme. When the Holy Ghost hath fervently kindled your love toward God, you will know these to be very sensible operations: .As you hear the wind and feel it too, while it strikes upon your bodily organs, you will know you are under the guidance of God’s Spirit the same way, namely, by feeling it .n your soul: by the present peace, and joy, and love, which you feel within as well as by its outward and more distant effects. I am,” &c. 148 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Aug. 1739. I have often wished, that all calm and impartial men would consider what is advanced by another writer, in a little discourse concerning enthusiasm, or religious delusion, published about this time. His words are,-- y ** A minister of our Church, who may look upon it as his duty to warn his parishioners, or an author who may think it necessary to caution his readers, against such preachers or their doctrine, (enthusiastic preachers, I suppose; such as he takes it for granted the Methodist preachers are,) ought to be very careful to act with a Christian spirit, and to advance nothing but with temper, charity, and truth. Perhaps the following rules may be proper to be observed by them :-- “1, Not to blame persons for doing that now which Scripture records holy men of old to have practised ; lest, had they lived in those times, they should have condemned them also. «° 2. Not to censure persons in holy orders, for teaching the same doctrines which are taught in the Scriptures and by our Church; lest they should ignorantly censure what they profess to defend.

Mon. 12.--I left London, and in the evening expounded, at Wycombe, the story of the Pharisee and the Publican. The next morning, a young gentleman overtook me on the road, and, after awhile, asked me if I had seen Whitefield’s Journals. I told him I had. “And what do you think of them?’ said he. ‘ Don’t you think they are d--n’d cant, enthusiasm from end to end? I think so.” I asked him, “ Why do you think so?” He replied, “ Why, he talks so much about joy and stuff, and inward feelings. As I hope to be saved, I cannot tell what to make of it?” _ I asked, “ Did you ever feel the love of God in your heart? If not, how should you tell what to make of it? Whatever is spoke of the religion of the heart, and of the inward workings of the Spirit of God, must appear enthusiasm to those who have not felt them ; that is, if they take upon them to judge of the things which they own they know not.” At four in the afternoon I came to Oxford, and to a small company in the evening explained the nature and extent of that salvation wherewith, “by grace, we are saved through faith.” The next evening I showed, what it is to believe ; as well as, more largely, what are the fruits of true believing; from those words of the Apostle, “ This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” Thur. 15.--My brother and I set out for Tiverton. About eleven I preached at Burford. On Saturday evening I explained, at Bristol, the nature and extent of Christian perfection: and at nine in the morning preached at Bath, on, “I know that in me dwelleth no good thing.” In the afternoon I exhorted four or five thousand people at Bristol,, neither to neglect nor rest in the means of grace. In the evening I endeavoured to lift up the hands that hung down, by declaring, “ He will not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax.” Mon. 19.--I earnestly exhorted those who had believed, to beware of two opposite extremes,---the one, the thinking while they were in light and joy, that the work was ended, when it was but just begun Nov. 1739. | REV. J. WESLEY S JOURNAL. 169

* As to faith, you believe,--1. There are no degrees of faith, and that no man has any degree of it, before all things in him are become new, before, he has the full assurance of faith, the abiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ dwelleth in him. 2. Accordingly you believe, there is no justifying faith, or state of justification, short of this. 3. Therefore you believe, our brother Hutton, Edmonds, and others, had no justifying faith before they saw you. 4. And in general, that that gift of God, which many received since Peter Béhler came into England, viz. ‘a sure confidence of the love of God’ to them, was not justifying faith. 5. And that the joy and love attending it were from animal spirits, from Journa] I.--12. i nd po ’ ' Se ‘ Pe 174 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Dec. 1739. nature or imagination; not ‘joy in the Holy Ghost,’ and the real ‘'ove of God shed abroad in their hearts.’ “Whereas I helieve, 1. There are degrees in faith; and that a man may have some degree of it, before all things in him are become new; before he has the full assurance of faith, the abiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ dwelleth in him. 2. Accordingly, I believe there is a degree of justifying faith (and, consequently, a state of justification) short of, and commonly antecedent to, this. 3. And I believe our brother Hutton, with many others, had justifying faith long before they saw you. 4. And, in general, that the gift of God, which many received since Peter Bohler came into England, viz. ‘a sure confidence of the love of God to them,’ was justifying faith. 5. And that the joy and love attending it, were not from animal spirits, from nature or imagination; but a measure of ‘joy in the Holy Ghost,’ and of ‘the love of God shed abroad in their hearts.’

“As to the manner of propagating the faith, you believe (as I have also heard others affirm,) That we may, on some accounts, use guile: By saying what we know will deceive the hearers, or lead them to think the thing which is not: By describing things a little beyond the truth, in order to their coming up to it: By speaking as if we meant what we do not. But I believe, That we may not ‘use guile’ on any account whatsoever: That we may not, on any account, say what we know will, and design should, deceive the hearers: That we may not describe things one jot beyond the truth, whether they come up to it or no: and, That we may not speak, on any pretence, as if we meant what indeed we do not. Lastly, As to the fruits of your thus propagating the faith in England, you believe, Much good has been done by it: Many unsettled from a false foundation: Many brought into true stillness, in order to their coming to the true foundation: Some grounded thereon, who were wrong before, but are right now. On the contrary, I believe that very little good, but much hurt, has been done by it. Many who were beginning to build holiness and good works, on the true foundation of faith in Jesus, being now wholly unsettled and lost in vain reasonings and doubtful disputa tions: Many others being brought into a false unscriptural stillness; so that they are not likely to come to any true foundation: And many being Jan. 1740.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 175 grounded on a faith which is without works ; so that they who were right before, are wrong now.” Tues. Jan. 1, 1740.--I endeavoured to explain to our brethren the true, Christian, scriptural stillness, by largely unfolding those solemn words, “ Be still, and know that I am God.” Wednesday, 2, I earnestly besought them all to “ stand in the old paths,” and no longer to subvert one another’s souls by idle controversies and strife of words. They all seemed convinced. We then cried to God, to heal all our backslidings: and he sent forth such a spirit of peace and love, as we had not known for many months before.

Fri. 25.--Another was with me, who after having tasted the heavenly gift, was fallen into the depth of despair. But it was not long before God heard the prayer, and restored to her the light of his countenance. One came to me in the evening, to know if a man could not be saved without the faith of assurance. I answered, “1. I cannot approve of your terms, because they are not scriptural. I find no such phrase as either ¢ faith of assurance’ or ‘ faith of adherence’ in the Bible. Besides, you speak as if there were two faiths in one Lord. Whereas, St. Paul tells us, there is bui one faith in one Lord. 2. By ‘Ye are saved by faith,’ I understand, ye are saved from your .award and outward sins. 3. I never yet knew one soul thus saved without what you call ‘the faith of assurance ;’ I mean a sure confidence, that, by the merits of Christ, he’ was reconciled to the favour of God.” Sat. 26.--I was strongly convinced, that if we asked of God, he would give light to all those that were in darkness. About noon we had a proof of it: one that was weary and heavy laden, upon prayer made for her, soon finding rest to her soul. In the afternoon we had a second proof,--another mourner being speedily comforted. M----y D n was a third, who about five o’clock began again to rejoice in God her Saviour: as did M----y H. y, about the same hour, after along night of doubts and fears. Thur. 31.--I went to one in Kings wood who was dangerously ill; as was supposed, past recovery. But she was strong in the Lord, longing to be dissolved and to be with Christ. Some of her words, were, “I was long striving to come to my Saviour, and I then thought he was afar off; but now I know he was nigh me all that time: I know his arms were round me; for his arms are like the rainbow, they go round heaven and earth.”

of smners,” than he burst out, “The Saviour of sinners indeed! I know it: for he has saved me. He told me so on Sunday morning. And he said, I should not die yet, till I had heard his children preach his Gospel, and had told my old companions in sin, that he is ready to save them too.” Sat. 23.--A gentlewoman (one Mrs. © ) desired to speak with me, and related a strange story :--On Saturday, the 16th instant, (as she informed me,) one Mrs. G., of Northampton, deeply convinced of sin, and therefore an abomination to her husband, was by him put into Bedlam. On Tuesday she slipped out of the gate with some other company ; and after a while, not knowing whither to go, sat down at Mrs. C.’s door. Mrs. C., knowing nothing of her, advised her the next day to go to Bedlam again; and went with her, where she was then chained down, and treated in the usual manner.--This is the Justice of men! A poor highwayman is hanged; and Mr. G. esteemed a very honest man ! Thur. 28.--I desired one who had seen affliction herself, to go and visit Mrs. G. in Bedlam, where it pleased God greatly to knit their hearts-together, and with his comforts to refresh their souls. Disputes being now at an end, and all things quiet and calm, on Monday, September 1, I left London,’ and the next evening found my brother at Bristol, swiftly recovering from his fever. At seven, it pleased God to apply those words to the hearts of many backsliders, ‘* How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall i make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together,” Hos. xi, 8.

after we were gone she rose up, called to the person that was with her, and said, ‘ Now it is done; Iam assured my sins are forgiven.’ The person answering, ‘ Death is a little thing to them that die in the Lord;’ she replied with vehemence, ‘A little thing! Itis nothing.’ The person then desiring she would pray for her, she answered, ‘I do: I pray for all. 1 pray for all I,.know, and for them I do not know: and the Lord will hear the prayer of faith.’ At our return, her sister kneeling by the bed-side, she said, ‘Are you not comforted, my dear, for me?’ Her speech then failing, she made signs for her to be by her, and kissed her and smiled upon her, She then lay about an hour without speaking or stirring; till about three o’clock on Monday morning, she cried out, ‘My Lord and my God! fetched a double sigh, and died.” Fri. 29.--Hearing of one who had been drawn away by those who prophesy smooth things, I went to her house. But she was purposely gone abroad. Perceiving there was no human help, I desired the congregation at Short’s Gardens, to join with me in prayer to God, that he would suffer her to have no rest in her spirit, till she returned into the way of truth. Two days after she came to me of her own accord, and confessed, in the bitterness of her soul, that she had no rest, day or night, while she remained with them, out of whose hands God had now delivered her. Mon. February 1.--I found, after the exclusion of some who did not walk according to the Gospel, about eleven hundred, who are, I trust, of a more excellent spirit, remained in the society. Thur. 4.--A clergyman lately come from America, who was at the preaching last night, called upon me, appeared full of good desires, and seemed willing to cast in his let with us. But I cannot suddenly answer in this matter. I must first know what spirit he is of; for none can labour with us, unless he “ count all things dung and dross, that he may win Christ.”

thing. He answered, ‘Nothing but Christ; and I am as sure of him as if I had him already.’ He often said, ‘ O mother, if all the world believed in Christ, what a happy world would it be!--And they may; for Christ died for every soul of man: I was the worst of sinners, and he died fcr me. O thou that callest the worst of sinners, call me! O, it is a free gift! I am sure I have done nothing to deserve it.” On Wednesday he said to his mother, ‘I amin very great trouble for my father; he has always taken an honest care of his family, but he does not know God; if he dies in the state he is in now, he cannot be saved. I have prayed for him. and will pray for him.’ (His father died not long after.) ‘If God should give him the true faith, and then take him to himself, do not you fear,-- do not you be troubled: God has promised to be a "palate to the fatherless, and a husband to the widow. I will pray for him and you in heaven; and I hope we shall sing hallelujah in heaven together.’ “To his eldest sister he said, ‘Do not puff yourself up with pride. When you receive your wages, which is not much, lay it out in plain necessaries. And if you are inclined to be merry, do not sing songs; that 1s the devil’s diversion; there are many lies and ill things in those idle songs: do you sing psalms and hymns. Remember your Creator in the days of your youth. When you are at work, you may lift up your heart to God; and be sure never to rise or go to bed without asking his blessing. He added, ‘I shall die; but do not cry forme. Why should you cry for me? Consider what a joyful thing it is, to have a brother go to heaven. I am nota man; Iam but a boy. But is it not in the Bible, ‘Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength?’ I know where I am going: I would not be without this knowiedge for a thousand worlds; for though I am not in heaven yet, I am as sure of it as if I was.’ ;

won. 17.--I had designed this morning to set out for Bristol ; but was unexpectedly prevented. In the afternoon I received a letter from Leicestershire, pressing me to come without delay, and pay the iast office of friendship to one whose. soul was on the wing for eternity. In Thursday, 20, I set out. The next afternoon I stopped a little at Newport Pagnell, and then rode on till I overtook a serious man, with whom I immediately fell into conversation. He presently gave me to «now what his opinions were; therefore I said nothing to contradict ‘hem. But that did not content him; he was quite uneasy to know, whether [ held the doctrine of the decrees as he did; but I told him over and over, “ We had better keep to practical things, lest we should 4e angry at one another.” And so we did for two miles, till he caught me unawares, and dragged me into the dispute before I knew where I was. He then grew warmer and warmer; told me I was rotten at neart, and supposed I was one of John Wesley’s followers. I told him, «“ No, I am John Wesley himself.” Upon which,-- Improvisum aspris veluti qui sentibus anguem Pressit,--(As one that has unawares trodden upon a snake,--) he would gladly have run away outright. But, being the better mounted of the two, I kept close to his side, and endeavoured to show him his heart till we came into the street cf Northampton. Saturday, 22. About five in the afternoon, I reached Donnington Park. Miss Cowper was just alive. But as soon as we came in, her spirit greatly revived. For three days we rejoiced in the grace of God, whereby she was filled 252 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [May, 1742 with a hope full of immortality ; with meckness, gentleness, patience. and humble love, knowing in whom she had believed.

Tues. 25.--I set out early in the morning with John Taylor; (since settled in London ;) and Wednesday, 26, in the evening, reached Birstal, six miles beyond Wakefield. John Nelson had wrote to me some time before: but at that time I had little thought of seeing him. Hearing he was at home, I sent for him to oir inn ; whence he immediately carried me to his house, and gave me an account of the strange manner wherein he had been led on, from the time of our parting at London. He had full business there, and large wages. But from the time of his finding peace with God, it was continually upon his mind, that he must return (though he knew not why) to his native place. He did so, about Christmas, in the year 1740. His relations and acquaintance soon began to inquire, what he thought of this new faith ; and whether he believed there was any such thing as a man’s knowing that his sins were forgiven: John told them point blank, that this new faith, as they called it, was the old faith of the Gospel; and that he himself was as sure his sins were forgiven, as he could be of the shining of the sun. This was soon noised abroad; more and more came to inquire concern:- ing these strange things: some put him upon the proof of the great truths which such inquiries naturally led him to mention; and thus he was brought unawares to quote, explain, compare, and enforce, severai parts of Scripture. This he did at first, sitting in his house, till the company increased so that the house could not contain them. Then he stood at the door, which he was commonly obliged to do, in the evening, as soon as he came from work. God immediately set his seal to what was spoken ; and several believed, and therefore declared, that God was merciful also to their unrighteousness, and had forgiven all their sins.

Sun. 6.--A little before the service began, I went to Mr. Romley, the curate, and offered to assist him either by preaching or reading prayers. But he did not care to accept of my assistance. The church was exceeding full in the afternoon, a rumour being spread that I was to preach. But the sermon on “ Quench not the Spirit,” was not suitable to the expectation of many of the hearers. Mr. Romley told them, one of the most dangerous ways of quenching the Spirit was by enthusiasm ; and enlarged on the character of an enthusiast, in a very florid and oratorical manner. After sermon John Taylor stood in the churchyard, and gave notice, as the people were coming out, “ Mr. Wesley, not being permitted to preach in the church, designs to preach here at six o’clock.” Accordingly at six I came, and found such a congrega tion as I believe Epworth never saw before. I stood near the east end of the church, upon my father’s tombstone, and cried, ‘ The kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink ; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” At eight I went to Edward Smith’s, where were many not only of Epworth, but of Burnham, Haxey, Ouston, Belton, and other villages round about, who greatly desired that I would come over to them and help them. I was now in a strait between two; desiring to hasten forward in my journey, and yet not knowing how to leave those poor bruised reeds in the confusion wherein J found them. John Harrison, 206 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [June, 1742. it seems, and Richard Ridley, had told them in express terms, * All the ordinances are man’s inventions ; and if you go to church or sacrament, you will be damned.” Many hereupon wholly forsook the church, and others knew not what to do. At last I determined to spend some days here, that I might have time both to preach in each town, and to speak severally with those, in every place, who had found or waited for salvation.

Many others took an opportunity of speaking to me, and declaring what God had done for their souls. But one came to me, Mrs. Sp---- , who was still torn in pieces with sorrow, and doubts, and fears. Her chief fear, she said, was, that we are all Papists. I asked her, how she came to fear this, after she had heard us preach for near three years, and been more than a twelvemonth in the society. She said, “ Why, it is not long since I met with a gentleman who told me, he was a Roman Catholic. And when I asked him, if Mr. Wesley was a Papist, he would not say yes or no; but only, ‘ Mr. W. is a very good man; and you do well to hear him.’ Besides, it is but two or three nights since, as I was Just setting out to come to the room, Miss Gr met me, and said, ‘ My dear friend, you sha’nt go; indeed you sha’nt; you don’t know what youdo. Iassure you, Mr. W. is a Papist, and soamI; he converted me. You know how I used to pray to saints and to the virgin Mary; it was Mr. W. taught me when I was in the bands. And I saw him rock the cradle on Christmas eve: you knowI scorn to tell a lie.’ Well, but, said I, how comes it that none of the rest who are in the bands, have found this out as well as you? ‘0,’ replied she, ‘ they are not let into the secret yet ; perhaps, if you was in the bands, you might not hear a word of it for a year or more. OQ, you can’t imagine the depth of the design!’ The maid at her back then fell a crying, and said, ** Indeed, madam, Miss Gr. talks so fine! Do, madam, mind what she says.” So between one and the other, poor Mrs. Sp----- was utterly confounded.

At eleven I preached my farewell sermon in the Hospital Square. I never saw such a congregation there before ; nor did I ever speak so searchingly. I could not conclude till one; and then both men, women, and children, hung upon me, so that I knew not which way to disengage myself. After some time, I got to the gate, and took horse ; but even then “a muckle woman” (as one called her, in great anger,) kept her hold, and ran by the horse’s side, through thick and thin, down to Sandgate. Jonathan Reeves rode with me. We reached Darlington that night, and Boroughbridge the next day. What encouragement have we to speak for God! At our inn we met an ancient man, who seemed by his conversation, never to have thought whether he had any soul or no. Before we set out, I spoke a few words concerning his cursing and idle conversation. ‘The man appeared quite broken in pieces: the tears started into his eyes; and he acknowledged (with abundance of thanks to me) his own guilt, and the goodness of God. Sat. January 1, 1743.--Between Doncaster and Epworth, I overtook one who immediately accosted me with so many and so impertinent questions, that I was quite amazed. In the midst of some of them, concerning my travels and my journey, I interrupted him, and asked, « Are you aware that we are on a longer journey; that we are travelling toward eternity?” He replied instantly, “O, I find you! I find you! I know where you are! Is not your name Wesley?’--’Tis pity! ’Tis great pity! Why could not your father’s religion serve you ? Why must you have a new religion?” I was going to reply; but he cut me short by crying out in triumph, “I am a Christian! I ama Christian! I am a Churchman! I am a Churchman! I am none of your Culamites;” as plain as he could speak; for he was so drunk, he could but just keep his seat. Having then clearly won the day, or, as his phrase was, ‘“‘put them all down,” he began kicking his horse on both sides, and rode off as fast as he could. In the evening I reached Epworth. Sunday, 2.--At five, I preached on, “ So is every one that is born of the Spirit.” About eight I preached

explained “the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” -- And it was high time; for I soon found the spirit of delusion was gone abroad here also; and some began to boast, that Christ had “ made them free,” who were still the “servants of sin.” In the evening 1 preached on that bold assertion of St. John, (indeed of all who have the true Spirit of adoption,) “ We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.” Fri. 18.--I rode forward for Newcastle. We inquired at Poplington, a little town three miles beyond York, and hearing there was no other town near, thought it best to call there. ‘A Bible lying in the window, my fellow traveller asked the woman of the house, if she read that book. She said, “Sir, I can’t read; the worse is my luck. But that great girl is a rare scholar; and yet she cares not if she ever looks in a book ;--she minds nought but play.” I began soon after to speak to our landlord, while the old woman drew closer and closer to me. The girl spun on; but all on a sudden she stopped her wheel, burst out into tears, and, with all that were in the house, so devoured our words, that we scarce knew how to go away. In the evening we came to Boroughbridge, and Saturday, 19, to Newcastle. Sun. 20.--I went on in expounding the Acts of the Apostles, and St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. In the following week I diligently inquired, who they were that did not walk according to the Gospel. In consequence of which I was obliged to put away above fifty persons. There remained above eight hundred in the society. Sat. 26.--I visited those that were sick. One of these had kept her room for many months, so that she had never heard the voice or seen the face of any _preacher of this way : but God had taught her in the school of afiliction. She gave a plain and distinct account of the manner wherein she received a sense of her acceptance with God, more than a year before ; and of a fuller manifestation of his love, of which she never after doubted for a moment.

to say to me !---I am John Wesley.” One of them appeared extremely angry at this, thet I should presume to say I was Mr. John Wesley.” And I know not how I might have fared for advancing so bold an assertion, but that Mr. Collins, the minister of Redruth, (accidentally, as he said) came by. Upon his accosting me, and saying, he knew me at Oxford, my first antagonist was silent, and a dispute of another kind began: whether this preaching had done any good. I appealed to inatter of fact. He allowed, (after many words,) “ People are the better for the present ;” but added, “ To be sure, by and by they will be as bad, if not worse than ever.” When he rode away, one of the gentlemen said, “ Sir, I would speak with you a little: let us ride to the gate.” We did so, and he said, “ Sir, I will tell you the ground of this. All the gentlemen of these parts say, that you have been a long time in France and Spain, and are now sent hither by the Pretender; and that these societies are to join him.” Nay, surely “all the gentlemen in these parts” will not he against their own conscience! I rode hence to a friend’s house, some miles off, and found the sleep of a labouring man is sweet. I was informed there were many here also who had an earnest desire to hear “ this preaching ;” but they did not dare; Sir V--n having solemnly declared, nay, and that in the face of the whole congregation, as they were coming out of church, “If any man of this parish dares hear these fellows, he shall not--come to my Christmas feast!”

“ Rev. Sirn,--Mary Cook, who had been ill for above six months, grew much worse a week or two ago. She had been long remarkably serious, and greatly desirous of knowing her interest in Christ; but then her desires were much increased, and she had no rest in her spirit, but cried unto him day and night. On Monday last, she mourned more than ever, and would not be comforted. Then she lay still a while, and on a sudden broke out, Praise God from whom pure blessings flow ! Her mother asked her the cause of this. She said, ‘O mother, I am happy, Iam happy: I shall soon go to heaven:’ and many more words she spoke to the same effect. I called upon her a few hours after, and found her still in a settled peace. She told me, ‘I am assured of God’s love to my soul. I ara not afraid to die. I know the Lord will take me to himself: Lord, hasten the time! I long to be with thee.’ On Tuesday and Wednesday she spoke little, being exceeding weak; but continued instant in prayer. On Wednesday, about noon, she desired her mother to get her up into the chair, which she did. A little before three, her mother holding her in her arms, she desired her to let her go. Then, placing herself upright in the chair, with her hands laid in her lap, and a calm majesty in her countenance, she said, ‘ Lord, receive my soul,’ and expired.” * Bristol, June 6, 1745. “J have delivered another of my charge to the Lord. On Saturday night Molly Thomas was taken home. She was always constant in the --_* The ee 346 REY. J. WESLEY'S JOURNAL. [ Aug. 1745.

“ After I left Wednesbury, I stayed two nights at Nottingham, and had large congregations. But while I was meeting the society the second night, there came a mob, raging as if they would pull the house to the ground. Assoonas we had done meeting, the constable came and seized me, and said, I must go before the mayor, for making a riot. So he took me by the arm, and led me through the streets, the mob accompanying us with curses and huzzas. God gave me as we went, to speak very plain to the constable, and to all that ‘rere near me: till one cried out, ‘Don’t carry him to the mayor, for he js a friend to the Methodists, but to alderman ----.’ Upon this he tur! ed, and led me to the alderman’s. When we were brought in, he said, ‘Sir, I have brought you another Methodist preacher.’ He asked my name, and then said, ‘I wonder you cannot stay at home: you see the mob won’t suffer you to preach in this town.’ I said, ‘I did not know this town was governed by the mob; most towns are governed by the magistrates.’ He said, ‘ What, do you expect us to take your parts, when you take the people from their work ?? I said, ‘ Sir, you are wrong informed; we preach at five in the morning, and seven at night: and these are the hours when most people are in 308 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ May, 1746 their beds in the morning, and at night, either at play or at the alehouse.

Wed. 14.--I rode on to Bristol, and spent a week in great peace. -Thursday, 22.--About half-hour after twelve, I took horse for Wick, where I had appointed to preach at three. I was riding by the wall through St. Nicholas gate (my horse having been brought to the house where I dined) just as a cart turned short from St. Nicholas-street, and came swiftly down the hill. There was just room to pass between the wheel of it and the wall; but that space was taken up by the cartman. I called to him to go back, or I must ride over him; but the man, as if deaf, walked straight forward. This obliged me to hold back my horse. In the mean time the shaft of the cart came full against his shoulder, with such a shock as beat him to the ground. He shot me forward over his head, as an arrow out of a bow, where I lay, with my arms and legs, I know not how, stretched out in a line close to the wall. The wheel ran by, close to my side, but only dirted my clothes. I found no flutter of spirit, but the same composure as if I had been sitting in my study. When the cart was gone, I rose. Abundance of people gathered round, till a gentleman desired me to step into his shop. After cleaning myself a little, I took horse again, and was at Wick bv the time appointed. Feb. 1747. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 327 I returned to Bristol (where the report of my being killed had spread far and wide) time enough to praise God in the great congregation, and to preach on, “Thou, Lord, shalt save both man and beast.” My shoulders, and hands, and side, and both my legs, were a little bruised ; my knees something more; my right thigh the most, which made it a little difficult to me to walk ; but some warm treacle took away all the pain in an hour, and the lameness in a day or two.

After a surgeon had dressed the wound in his head, John went softly onto Acomb. About five he went out, in order to preach, and began singing a hymn. Before it was ended, the same gentlemen came in a coach from York, with a numerous attendance. They threw clods and stones so fast on every side, that the congregation soon dispersed. John walked down into a little ground, not far from Thomas Slaton’s house. Two men quickly followed, one of whom swore desperately he would have his life. And he seemed to be in good earnest. He struck him several times, with all his force, on the head and breast; and at length threw him down, and stamped upon him, till he left him for dead. But, by the mercy of God, being carried into a house, he scon came to himself; and after a night’s rest, was so recovered, that he was able to ride to Osmotherly. Tues. 21.--I called at Thirsk ; but, finding the town full of holiday folks, drinking, cursing, swearing, and cock fighting, I did not stop at all, but rode on to Boroughbridge, and in the afternoon to Leeds. Wed. 22.--I spent an hour with Mr. M., and pressed him to make good his assertion, that our preaching had done more harm than good. This he did not choose to pursue; but enlarged on the harm it mignt occasion in succeeding generations. I cannot see the force of this 396 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [May, 1747. argument. JI dare not neglect the doing certain, present good, for fear. of some probable ill consequences in the succeeding century. Thur. 23. --I preached at Morley and Birstal; on Friday, at Birstal and Leeds ; on Saturday, at Oulton and Armley. Sun. 26.--I met the Leeds society at five; preached at seven, on, “ The Spirit and the Bride say, Come ;” and at one, to an unwieldy multitude, several hundreds of whom soon went away, it being impos~ sible for them to hear. Such another congregation I had at Birstal ; -- yet here I believe my voice reached all that were present. Mon. 27, --I preached at Birstal, at Wibsey Moor, and at Bradford, and regulated the societies,

Mon. 17.--I began examining the society, which I finished the next day. It contained about two hundred and fourscore members, many of whom appeared to be strong in faith. The people in general are of a more teachable spirit than in most parts of England. But, on that very account, they must be watched over with the more care, being equally susceptible of good and ill impressions. Tues. 18.-----_I was informed that Mr. Latrobe, the Moravian preacher, had read in his pulpit part of the “Short View of the Difference between the Moravians” and us, with the addition of many bitter words. Herein he did us, anawares, a signal favour; giving an authentic proof that we have nothing to do with them. Fri. 21.--I was desired to see the town and the college. The town has scarce any public building, except the Parliament house, which is at all remarkable. The churches are poor and mean, both:within and without. St. Stephen’s Green might be made a beautiful place, being abundantly larger than Lincoln’s Inn Square; but the houses round about it (besides that some are low and bad) are quite irregular, and un- ’ like each other ; and little care is taken of the Green itself, which is as rough and uneven as acommon. (It was so then.) The college contains two little quadrangles; and one about as large as that of New College, in Oxford. There is likewise a bowling green, a small garden, and a little park ; and a new built, handsome library. 1 expected we should have sailed on Saturday, 22 ; but no packet boat was come in. In order to make the best of our time, I preached this day at noon, as well as in the evening. It was not for nothing that our passage was delayed. Who knows what a day may bring forth?

Thomas Thompson, the next, was quite an ignorant man, scarce able to express himself on common occasions; yet some of his expressions were intelligible enough. “I don’t know,” said he, “ how it is; I used to have nothing but bad and wicked thoughts in me, and now they are all gone; and I know God loves me, and he has forgiven my sins.” He per-: sisted in this testimony till death, and in a behaviour suitable thereto. When John Roberts came first into John L.’s cell, he was utterly careless and sullen. But it was not long before his countenance changed: the tears ran down his cheeks, and he continued from that hour, earnestly and steadily seeking repentance and remission of sins. There did not pass many days, before he likewise declared that the burden of sin was gone, that the fear of death was utterly taken away, and it returned no more. William Gardiner, from the time that he was condemned, was very ill of the gaol distemper. She visited him in his own cell, till he was able to come abroad. He was a man of exceeding few words, but of a broken and contrite spirit. Some time after he expressed great readiness to die, yet with the utmost diffidence of himself. One of his expressions, to a person accompanying him to the place of execution, was, “ O sir, I have nothing to trust to but the blood of Christ! If that won’t do, Iam undone for ever.” As soon as Sarah Cunningham was told that the warrant was come down for her execution, she fell raving mad. She had but few intervals of reason, till the morning of her execution. She was then sensible, but spoke little; till, being told, “ Christ will have pity upon you, if you ask him,” she broke out, “Pity upon me! Will Christ have pity upon me 2? Then I will ask him; indeed I will;” which she did in the best manner she could, till her soul was required of her.

though I am much reflected on for it, this does not in any wise discourage me. While I am conscious to myself that I do no harm, J am careless of what men can say of me. Michael Poor, lately a Roman, who is now of your society, read his recantation on Sunday last. Pray -et us know when you cr your brother intend for this kingdom and town . For be sure, none wish more sincerely to see and converse with you than I, who am sincerely, reverend and dear sir, “Your very affectionate brother and servant. © Aug. 29, 1749.” Fri. September 1.--I spoke severally with the members of the society. Saturday, 2.--I gathered up a few at Belton who did once run well, and seemed now resolved, no more to “ forsake the assembling of” themselves “together.” Sun. 3.--At nine I preached at Misterton, to a very large and attentive congregation; between one and two, at Overthorp, near Haxey; and at Epworth about five. In the intervals of preaching I spoke with the members of the society in each place ; most of whom I found either already alive to God, or earnestly panting after him. Mon. 4.--We rode to Sykehouse ; and on Tuesday, in the afternoon, reached Osmotherley. Wed. 6.--I reached Newcastle ; and after resting a day, and preaching two evenings and two mornings, with such a blessing as we have not often found, on Friday set out to visit the northern societies. I began with that of Morpeth, where I preached at twelve, on one side of the market place. It was feared the market would draw the people from the sermon ; but it was just the contrary : they quitted their stalls, and there was no buying or selling till the sermon was concluded. At Alnwick likewise I stood in the market place in the evening, and exhorted a numerous congregation to be always ready for death, for judgment, for heaven. I felt what I spoke; as I believe did most that were present, both then and in the morning, while I besought them to “ present” themselves, “ a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.”

I then went down to a small company of the poor people, and spent half an hour with them in prayer. About nine, as we were preparing to go to bed, the house was beset again. The Captain burst in first. Robert Griffith’s daughter was standing in the passage with a pail of water, with which (whether with design or in her fright, I know not) she covered him from head to foot. He cried as well as he could, « M--urder! murder!” and stood very still for some moments. In the mean time Robert Griffith stepped by him and locked the door. Finding himself alone, he began to change his voice, and cry, ‘ Let me out! Let me out!” Upon his giving his word and honour, that none of the rest should come in, they opened the door, and all went away together. Sun. April 1.--We designed to set out early for Mr. Holloway’s ; but the rain kept us till eight o’clock. We then set out, having one of Holyhead for our guide, reached a church six or seven miles off, about eleven, (where we stopped till the service was ended,) and went on to William Pritchard’s, near Llanerellymadd. I had appointed to preach there at four. I found the same spirit as before among this loving, simple people. _ Many of our hearts burned within us; and I felt what I spoke, “ The kingdom of God is at hand.” 480 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ April, 1750.

All this time God gave us great peace at Bandon, notwithstanding the unwearied labours, both public and private, of good Dr. B , to stir up the people. But, Saturday, 26, many were under great apprehensions of what was to be done in the evening. I began preaching in the main street at the usual hour, but to more than twice the usual congregation. After I had spoke about a quarter of an hour, a clergyman, who had planted himself near me, with a very large stick in his hand, according to agreement, opened the scene. (Indeed his friends assured me he was in drink, or he would not have done it.) But, before he had uttered many words, two or three resolute women, by main strength, pulled him into a house; and, after expostulating a little, sent him away through the garden. But here he fell violently on her that conducted him, not in anger, but love; (such as it was ;) so that she was constrained to repel force by force, and cuff him soundly before he would let her go. The next champion that appeared was one Mr. M » @ young gentleman of the town. He was attended by two others, with pistols in their hands. But his triumph too was but short; some of the people quickly bore him away, though with much gentleness and civility. The third came on with greater fury ; but he was encountered by a butcher of the town, (not one of the Methodists,) who used him as he would an ox, bestowing one or two hearty blows upon his head. This cooled his courage, especially as none took his part. So I quietly finished my discourse. Sun. 277.--I wrote to the mayor of Cork, as follows :-- ““ Mr. Mayor,--An hour ago I received ‘ A letter to Mr. Butler,’ just reprinted at Cork. The publishers assert, ‘it was brought down from Dublin to be distributed among the society; but Mr. Wesley called in as many as he could.’ Both these assertions are absolutely false. I read some lines of that letter when I was in Dublin; but never read it over before this morning. Who the author of it is I know not; but this I know, I never calleu in one, neither concerned myself about it; much less brought any down to distribute among the society.

Sat. 23.--I heard, face to face, two that weie deeply prejudiced -- against each other, Mrs. E , and Mrs. M But the longer they talked, the warmer they grew ; till, in about three hours, they were almost distracted. One who came in as a witness, was as hot as either. I perceived there was no remedy but prayer. So a few of us wrestled with God for above two hours. When we arose, Mrs. M. ran and fell on the other’s neck. Anger and revenge were vanished away, and melted down into love. One only, M t B , continued still in bitter agony of soul. We besought God in her behalf; and did not let him go, till she also was set at liberty. Sun. 24.--There being no English service, I went to the French church. I have sometimes thought, Mr. Whitefield’s action was violent: but he is a mere post to Mr. Calliard. In the evening I preached at Mount Mellick, where were two from Roscrea, to show me the way thither. One of them gave us so strange a relation, that I thought it worth while to set it down, as nearly as might be, in his own words. The strangest part of it rests not on his testimony alone, but on that of many of his neighbours; none of whom could have any manner of temptation to affirm either more or less than they saw with their eyes : “ My son, John Dudley, was born at Roscrea, in the year 1726. He was serious from a child, tender of conscience, and greatly fearing God. When he was at school, he did not play like other children; but spent his whole time in learning. About eighteen I took him home, and employed him in husbandry; and he grew more and more serious. On February 4, 747, just as I was laid down in bed, he cried out, ‘My dear father, I am ready to be choked.’ I ran, and took him in my arms; and in about a minute he recovered.

Sat. 15.--I read over a short “ Narrative of Count Z ’s Life, written by himself.” Was there ever such a Proteus under the sun as this Lord Freydeck, Domine de Thurstain, &c, &c? For he has almost as many names as he has faces or shapes. O when will he learn (with all his learning) “ simplicity and godly sincerity?” When will he be an upright follower of the Lamb, so that no guile may be found in his mouth? Mon. 17.--My brother set out for the north ; but returned the next day, much out of order. How little do we know the counsels of God! But we know they are all-wise and gracious. Wed. 19.--When I came home in the evening, I found my brcther abundantly worse. He had had no sleep for several nights ; and expected none, unless from opiates. I went down to our brethren below, and we made our request known to God. When I went up again he was in a sound sleep, which continued till the morning. Fri. 11.--We had a watch-night at Spitalfields. I often wonder at the peculiar providence of God on these occasions. I do not know that in so many years one person has ever been hurt, either in London, Bristol, or Dublin, in going so late in the night to and from all parts of fue town. Sun. 23.--My brother being not yet able to assist, I had more employment to-day than I expected. In the morning I read prayers, preached, and administered the sacrament to a large congregation in Spitalfields. The service at West-street continued from nine till one. At five I called the sinners in Moorfields to repentance. And, when I had finished my work found more liveliness and strength than I did at six in the morning. Mon. 24 ---[ left London, and, the next morning, called at what is t 300 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ Oct. 1750

“From the time she joined the society, she was a true lover of her ministers and her brethren ; not suffering any to speak evil of them, particularly of her ministers: and if her innocent answers did not stop them, she left theircompany. In the beginning of December (ast she was indisposed; and on Saturday, 8, took her room. In the afternoon she broke out, ‘ When shall I see my Jesus? I want to know that he has taken away my sins.’ After a while she cried, ‘He does love me. I know Jesus loves me. My Father! He is my Father and my God.’ “Yet on the Wednesday following she was in deep distress. ‘I found her,’ says one who then visited her, ‘crying out, “O that I was washed in the blood of the Lamb! Pray for me, that I may know my sins are forgiven.” I prayed with her several times, and stayed all night. She did not sleep at all; her pain of body, as well as mind, being exceeding great. She was almost continually in prayer, crying for mercy, till I went away, about eight in the morning. ** About nine in the evening 1 came again. She was still in violent pain, but did not seem to regard this in comparison of her soul. Her continual ery was, “I do not know Christ: I want an interest in Christ: O that I might know him! O that he would forgive my sins; that he would wash me whiter than-snow!” She had never any ease but while we were at prayer, with which she was never satisfied ; but held me, and would not let me rise from my knees, sometimes for an hour together. I was praying with her about twelve o’clock, when she called out, “ Help me to praise the Lord. I feel my sins are forgiven. 1am washed, and made whiter than snow.” She spent the remainder of the night in praise and prayer. About eight in the morning I went home. Pe Ad oe % ae ¥ 516 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Jane, 1751.

3. After deeply weighing the matter, I read the following paper before I gave it into his hands :-- “ June 25, 1'751. ** Because you have wrought folly in Israel, grieved the Holy Spirit of God, betrayed your own soul into temptation and sin, and the souls of many others, whom you ought, even at the peril of your own life, to have guarded against all sin; because you have given occasion to the enemies of God, whenever they shall know these things, to blaspheme the ways and truth of God: we can in no wise receive you as a fellow labourer, till we see clear proofs of your real and deep repentance. Of this you have given us no proof yet. You have not so much as named one single person, in all England or Ireland, with whom you have behaved ill, except those we knew before. “The least and lowest proof of such repentance which we can receive, is this:--that till our next conference, (which we hope will be in Octo ber,) you abstain both from preaching, and from practising physic. If you do not, we are clear; we cannot answer for the consequences. “ Joun WESLEY, “CuarLes WESLEY.” 4. Wednesday, 26, I desired him to meet me at Farleywick, with the other women, at eight in the morning. All the five women came, and gave my wife the same account which they had before given to my brother: but Mr. Wh did not come till after they were all gone. 5. On Thursday and Friday my brother and { spared no pains to per- uade him to retire for a season; but it was labour lost. He professed Aug. 1751. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL 519 himself, indeed, and we would fain have thought him, penitent; but I could not find any good proof that he was so. Nay, I saw strong proof that he was not :--1. Because he never owned one tittle but what he knew we could prove. -2. Because he always extenuated what he could not deny. 3. Because he as constantly accused others as excused himself; saying, many had been guilty of little imprudences as wellas he. 4. Be cause, in doing this, he told several palpable untruths, which he well knew so to be.

He began his sermon nearly in these words: “The last Lord’s day I preached on, ‘ Doing as you would be done to,’ in hopes of preventing such proceedings as are contrary to all justice, mercy, and humanity. As I could not do that, I have chosen these words for your present consideration, ‘ Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ ” He concluded nearly thus: “1 am sorry any such outrage should be committed, particularly in this parish, where I have been teaching so many years. And to how little purpose! I will remove, as soon as possibly I can, from a place where I can do so little good. O what an account have they to make, who have either occasioned or encouraged these proceedings! May God grant that they may repent in time! That they may know what spirit they are of ! That they may, before it is too late, acknowledge and love the truth as it is in Jesus!” I preached again in the same place at one and at four; and the whole congregation were quiet and serious. Mon. 6.--Finding no ship ready to sail, I determined to return to Whitehaven: so I took horse with my wife between nine and ten, and - in the evening preached at Manchester. Tues. 7.--We rode to Bol- b40 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [July, 1752 ton; on Wednesday, to Chipping ; and on Friday, 10, reached White haven. Sun. 12.--I took my old stand in the market place, about seven in the morning, and proclaimed “the Lord God, gracious and merciful, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin.” In the afternoon we had an awakening sermon at the new church, on, “ One thing is needful.” At five I preached in the room, on, “‘ To fear the Lord, that is wisdom ; and to depart from evil, is understanding.”

Wed. 21.--After dinner, abundance of rabble gathered near the Town Hall, having procured an engine, which they exercised on all that came in their way. So I gave them the ground, and preached at our own room in great quietness. Thur. 22.--I rode to Birmingham. A few poor wretches, I found, had occasioned fresh disturbance here. The chief was Sarah B , with whom I talked at large. Sat. 24.--She said, “I am in heaven in the spirit; but I can speak in the flesh. I am not that which appears, but that which disappears. [ always pray, and yet I never pray: for what can I pray for? I have all.” I asked, * Do not you pray for sinners?” She said, “ No; I know no sinners but one. I know but two in the world: God is one. and the devil is the other.” I asked, “ Did not Adam sin of old; and do not adulterers and murderers sin now ?”’ She replied, * No; Adam never sinned; and no man sins now: it is only the devil.” ‘ And will no man ever be damned?” ‘No man ever will.” ‘Nor the devil?” “Iam not sure; but I believe not.” ‘Do you receive the sacrament?” ‘No; I do not want it.” ‘Is the word of God your rule??? Yes; the Word made flesh; but not the letter. Iam in the Spirit.” Sun. 25.--Upon inquiry, I found these wild enthusiasts were six in all,--four men and two women. They had first run into the height of Antinomianism, and then were given up to the spirit of pride and blasphemy. We reached Bilbrook in the evening, and a little before six. on Monday, 26, Poole, near Nantwich. I was pretty much tired, but soon recovered my strength, and explained to a serious people, “I determined not to know any thing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Tues. 2'7.--We rode to Chester, where we found the scene’ quite changed since I was here before. There is no talk of pulling down houses. The present mayor, being a man of courage as well as honesty, will suffer no riot of any kind, so that there is peace through all the city.

Fri. 19.--I rode over to Howell Harris at Trevecka, though not knowing how to get any further. But he helped us out of our difhiculties ; offering to send one with us who would show us the way, and bring our horses back: so I then determined to go on to Holyhead, after spending a day or two at Brecknock. Sat. 20.--It being the day appointed for the justices and commissioners to meet, the town was extremely full; and curiosity (if no better motive) brought most of the gentlemen to the preaching. Such another opportunity could not have been of speaking to all the rich and great of the county: and they all appeared to be serious and attentive. Perhaps one or two may lay it to heart. Sun. 21.--I delayed preaching till nine, for the sake of the tender and delicate ones. At two we had near the whole town; and God reserved the great blessing for the last. Afterward we rode to Trevecka: but our guide was ill: sc in the morning we set out without him... Before I talked with him myself, I wondered H. Harris did not go out and preach as usual: but he now informed me, he preached till he could preach no longer, his constitution being entirely broken. While he was thus confined, he was pressed in spirit to build a large house; though he knew not why, or for whom. But as soon as it was built, men, women, and children, without his seeking, came to it from all bette: 598 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ March, 1756. parts of Wales : and, except in the case of the Orphan House at Halle, I never heard of so many signal interpositions of Divine providence.

Sun. 25.--One of the Germans stumbled in while I was expounding, “Is Christ the minister of sin?” For a time she seemed greatly diverted; but the application spoiled her mirth: she soon hung down her head, and felé the difference between the chaff and the wheat. Mon. 26.--I set out for Cork, purposing to see as many societies as I could in my way. In the afternoon I came to Edinderry, where the little society have built a commodious preaching house. I had designed to preach abroad; but the keen north wind drove us into the house. The congregation (though they had no previous notice) filled it from end to end; but some of them found it too hot, and hurried out, while I applied, “Ye must be born again.” About this time I received the following letter : “ REVEREND Sir,--I once, through the influence of those about me, was ready to join the common cry against you, not knowing what I did: but sinve, by hearing your discourses, with some of Mr. Walsh’s, and by reading your Sermons and Appeals, I have learned a better lesson. 1! have learned that true Christianity consists, not in a set of opinions, or of forms and ceremonies, but in holiness of heart and life,--in a thorough imitation of our Divine Master. And this I take to be the doctrine of the Church of England; nor do IL apprehend you differ from her at all in doctrine. And I am grieved to know you have too much cause to differ from April, 1756. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. oul

““*May 7. Four in the morning. Jam just come from witnessing the last sighs of one dear to you, to me, and to all that knew him. Mr. Wardrobe died last night. He was seized on Sabbath last, just as he was going to the kirk, with a most violent colic, which terminated in a mortification of his bowels. The circumstances of his death are worthy to be recorded. With what pleasure he received the message, and went off in al] the triumph of a conqueror; crying out, My warfare is accomplished: I have fought the good fight: my victory is completed. Crowns of grace shall adorn this head, (taking off his cap,) and palms be put into these hands. Yet a little while, and I shall sing for ever. I know that my Redeemer liveth. When he was within a few moments of his last, he gave me his hand, and a little after said, JVow, lettest thou thy servant depart in peace ; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation. Were I to repeat half what he spoke, I should write you three hours. It shall suffice at this time to say, that as he lived the life, so he died the death, of a Christian. We weep not for him; we weep for ourselves. I wish we may know how to improve this awful judgment, so as to be also ready, not knowing when our Lord cometh.’ ” Mr. Adams, minister of Falkirk, writes thus :--

A Prayer Under Convictions Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1739), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- 1 Father of light,11 from whom proceeds Whate’er thy ev’ry creature needs, Whose goodness providently nigh Feeds the young ravens when they cry; To thee I look; my heart prepare, Suggest, and hearken to my pray’r. 2 Since by thy light myself I see Naked, and poor, and void of thee, Thine eyes must all my thoughts survey, Preventing what my lips would say: Thou seest my wants; for help they call, And ere I speak, thou know’st them all. 3 Thou know’st the baseness of my mind Wayward, and impotent and blind, Thou know’st how unsubdu’d my will, Averse to good, and prone to ill: Thou know’st how wide my passions rove, Nor check’d by fear, nor charm’d by love. 4 Fain would I know, as known by thee, And feel the indigence I see; Fain would I all my vileness own, And deep beneath the burden groan: Abhor the pride that lurks within, Detest and loath myself and sin. 11Only the 2nd edn. (1739) uses “Father of lights,” as in James 1:17. 5 Ah give me, Lord, myself to feel, My total misery reveal: Ah give me, Lord, (I still would say) A heart to mourn, a heart to pray; My business this, my only care, My life, my ev’ry breath be pray’r. 6 Scarce I begin my sad complaint, When all my warmest wishes faint; Hardly I lift my weeping eye, When all my kindling ardors die; Nor hopes nor fears my bosom move, For still I cannot, cannot love. 7 Father, I want a thankful heart; I want to taste how good thou art, To plunge me in thy mercy’s sea, And comprehend thy love to me; The breadth, and length, and depth, and height Of love divinely infinite. 8 Father, I long my soul to raise And dwell for ever on thy praise, Thy praise with glorious joy to tell, In extasy unspeakable; While the full pow’r of FAITH I know, And reign triumphant here below.

34 Shine in our hearts Father of light, Jesu thy beams impart, Spirit of truth our minds unite, And make us one in heart.

3 By faith we know thee strong to save, (Save us, a present Saviour thou!) Whate'er we hope, by faith we have, Future and past subsisting now.

5 The things unknown to feeble sense, Unseen by reason's glimm'ring ray, With strong, commanding evidence Their heavenly origine display.

3 The heavens thy glorious power proclaim, If thou in us thy power declare; We know from whom the fabrick came, Our heart believes, when God is there.

1 Exempted from the general doom, The death which all are born to know, Enoch obtain'd his heavenly home By faith, and disappear'd below.

2 Assur'd the Saviour should appear, And confident in Christ to come, Him they embrac'd, tho' distant near, And languish'd for their heavenly home.

3 Pilgrims they here themselves confess'd, Who no abiding-place must know, Strangers on earth they could not rest, Or find their happiness below.

7 Women their quicken'd dead receiv'd, Women the power of faith display'd, With stedfast confidence believ'd, Believ'd their children from the dead.

In Temptation Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- In Temptation.34 Sinking underneath my load, Darkly feeling after thee, Let me ask, my God, my God, Why hast thou forsaken me! Why, O why am I forgot! Lord, I seek, but find thee not. Still I ask, nor yet receive, Knock at the unopen’d door; Still I struggle to believe, Hope, tho’ urg’d to hope no more, Bearing what I cannot bear, Yielding, fighting with despair. Hear in mercy my complaint, Hear, and hasten to my aid, Help, or utterly I faint, Fails the spirit thou hast made; Save me, or my foe prevails, Save me, or thy promise fails. Struggling in the fowler’s snare, Lo! I ever look to thee: Tempted more than I can bear-- No, my soul, it cannot be; True and faithful is the word, Sure the coming of thy Lord. 34This hymn appeared first in the 2nd edn. of HSP (1739), 102-3; it was then moved to this collection.

[1 Corinthians 10:11.] “These things were written for our instruction” Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- [1 Corinthians x. 11.] “These things were written for our instruction.” Jesu, if still thou art to day As yesterday the same, Present to heal, in me display The virtue of thy name. If still thou go’st about, to do Thy needy creatures good, On me, that I thy praise may shew, Be all thy wonders shew’d. Now, Lord, to whom for help I call, Thy miracles repeat; With pitying eyes behold me fall A leper at thy feet. Loathsome, and foul, and self-abhor’d, I sink beneath my sin; But if thou wilt, a gracious word Of thine can make me clean. Thou see’st me deaf to thy commands, Open, O Lord, my ear; Bid me stretch out my wither’d hands, And lift them up in prayer. Silent, (alas thou know’st how long) My voice I cannot raise; But O! When thou shalt loose my tongue, The dumb shall sing thy praise. Lame at the pool I still am found: Give; and my strength employ; Light as a hart I then shall bound, The lame shall leap for joy. Blind from my birth to guilt, and thee, And dark I am within, The love of God I cannot see, The sinfulness of sin. But thou, they say, art passing by; O let me find thee near: Jesus, in mercy hear my cry! Thou Son of David hear! Long have I waited in the way For thee the heavenly light; Command me to be brought, and say, “Sinner, receive thy sight.” While dead in trespasses I lie, The quick’ning Spirit give; Call me, thou Son of God, that I May hear thy voice, and live. While full of anguish and disease, My weak, distemper’d soul Thy love compassionately sees, O let it make me whole. While torn by hellish pride, I cry, By legion-lust possest, Son of the living God, draw nigh, And speak me into rest. Cast out thy foes, and let them still To Jesu’s name submit; Cloath with thy righteousness, and heal, And place me at thy feet. To Jesu’s name if all things now A trembling homage pay, O let my stubborn spirit bow, My stiff-neck’d will obey. Impotent, dumb, and deaf, and blind, And sick, and poor I am; But sure a remedy to find For all in Jesu’s name. I know in thee all fulness dwells, And all for wretched man; Fill every want my spirit feels, And break off every chain.

To Be Sung at Meals Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- To Be Sung at Meals.52 Come let us lengthen out the feast, To thankfulness improve, God in his gifts delight to taste, And pay them back in love. His providence supplies our needs, And life and strength imparts; His open hand our bodies feeds, And fills with joy our hearts. But will he not our souls sustain, And nourish with his grace? Yes: for thou wilt not say, in vain My people seek my face. See then we take thee at thy word, With confidence draw nigh, We claim, and of thy Spirit, Lord, Expect a fresh supply. The sinner, when he comes to thee, His fond pursuit gives o’er, From nature’s sickly cravings free, He pines for earth no more. 52Charles included this hymn in a later manuscript selection for family use: MS Family, 14-15.

Groaning for the Spirit of Adoption Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- Still let me run, or end my race; I cannot chuse, I all resign; Contract or lengthen out my days; Come life, come death; for Christ is mine. Groaning for the Spirit of Adoption.54 Father, if thou my Father art, Send forth the Spirit of thy Son, Breathe him into my panting heart, And make me know, as I am known: Make me thy conscious child, that I May “Father, Abba, Father” cry. I want the Sp’rit55 of power within, Of love, and of an healthful mind; Of power, to conquer inbred sin, Of love to thee, and all mankind, Of health, that pain and death defies, Most vig’rous, when the body dies. When shall I hear the inward voice, Which only faithful souls can hear! Pardon, and peace, and heavenly joys Attend the promis’d Comforter: He comes! And righteousness divine, And Christ, and all with Christ is mine! 54A manuscript draft of this hymn is can be pieced from two collections: the first four and a third stanzas appear on a looseleaf page (numbered page 22) in Special Collections of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary Library, in a volume titled “Presidents of the British Wesleyan Conference”; the remained is found on a looseleaf page (numbered page 23) in MARC, DDCW 6. 55Spelled out as “Spirit” in manuscript draft.

[Luke 15:21.] “Father, I have sinned against heaven ...” Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- [Luke xv. 21.] “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.” When I was a little child, O what sweetness did I prove! Then on me my Father smil’d, Clasp’d me in the arms of love; Bore me all my infant days, Gently by his Spirit led, Dandled me upon his knees, Made me on his promise feed. But alas! I soon rebell’d, Would not cast on him my care, Swell’d with pride, with passion swell’d, I could neither fall, nor err. I was strong and able grown, I could for myself provide, I had wisdom of my own: Let the weaker seek a guide. When to him I would not look, Griev’d and hardly forc’d away, Me my guide at length forsook, Me my Father left to stray. Angrily he hid his face: Careless of his smile or frown, I pursued my evil ways, Frowardly in sin went on. Back recall’d, I know not how, Father, I my folly mourn: If thou art my Father now, Now assist me to return. Freely my backslidings heal, Once again become my guide, Save me from my wayward will, Empty me of self and pride. Thou who all my ways hast seen, Since I would from thee depart, Suffer me no more to lean To my own deceitful heart. O repair my grievous loss, Comfort to my soul restore: Once a little child I was: Lift me up to fall no more. Give me back my innocence, Give me back my filial fears, Humble, loving confidence, Praying sighs, and speaking tears. Weak and helpless may I be, To thy only will resign’d, Ever hanging upon thee, Simple, ignorant, and blind. Abba Father! Hear my cry, Look upon thy weeping child, Weeping at thy feet I ly, Kiss me, and be reconcil’d:66 66John Wesley marks this verse for omission in his personal copy of the 5th edn. (1756).

To his Brother Samuel Date: OXON, June 17, 1724. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1724) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, -- I believe I need not use many arguments to show I am sorry for your misfortune, though at the same time I am glad you are in a fair way of recovery. If I had heard of it from any one else, I might probably have pleased you with some impertinent consolations; but the way of your relating it is a sufficient proof that they are what you don’t stand in need of. And indeed, if I understand you rightly, you have more reason to thank God that you did not break both, than to repine because you have broke one leg. You have undoubtedly heard the story of the Dutch seaman who having broke one of his legs by a fall from the main-mast instead of condoling himself, thanked God that he had not broke his neck. [See Spectator, No. 574.] I scarce know whether your first news vexed me, or your last news pleased me, more; but I can assure you that, though I did not cry for grief at the former, I did for joy at the latter part of your letter. The two things that I most wished for of almost anything in the world were to see my mother and Westminster once again; 'and to see them both together was so far above my expectations that I almost looked upon it as next to an impossibility. I have been so very frequently disappointed when I had set my heart on any pleasure, that I will never again depend on any before it comes. However, I shall be obliged to you if you will tell me as near as you can how soon my uncle is expected in England and my mother in London. I hope my sister is pretty well recovered by this time, and that all at Westminster are in as good health as Your loving Brother. PS.--Pray give my service to Mrs. Harris, and as many as ask after me. Since you have a mind to see some of my verses, I have sent you some, which employed me above an hour yesterday in the afternoon. There is one, and I am afraid but one, good thing in them--that is, they are short. As o'er fair Cloe’s rosy cheek,

The substance of it was this. It was told to the Bishop that a lad in his diocese frequently bragged that he was carried up into the air by invisible hands; who immediately sent for him to find out the truth. The lad in private, though not without menacing, confessed that he was often carried into the air, by he knew not whom, to a fine palace; where he was made to sit down at table with a great many people, who feasted and made merry; but that he was afraid they would be angry with him for telling it. The Bishop endeavored by many arguments to dissuade him from spreading such stories, which he told him could not be true, and were at best but the effects of a troubled fancy. But the boy persisted in it, and told his lordship that if he would have a little patience he would presently be convinced of the truth of his relation; for by certain symptoms which he said always preceded his transportation, he was sure it was not far off. This was presently confirmed in the Bishop's presence, the boy being hoisted away out of the window, to his no small amazement. The next day about the same time the boy was let down into the same room, but so bruised and dispirited that it was an hard matter to get a word from him. After some time and repeated threats and promises, he told the Bishop that he was carried to the place he had before spoken of, but that instead of sitting down, as he used to do' with the company, one or two were set apart to beat him, while the rest were making merry. His lordship now believed it was something more than a jest, being convinced that it was the devil, who for some unknown reasons was permitted to exert an extraordinary power over this lad. He nevertheless proceeded to comfort and pray by him; yet even while he was praying the boy was once more taken from him, nor was he restored again till some hours into the same chamber.

To his Mother Date: LINCOLN COLLEGE, January 25, 1727. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1727) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR MOTHER, -- I am shortly to take my Master's degree. [He took his M.A. on Feb. 14, gaining considerable reputation by his disputation for the degree. He told Henry Moore that he delivered three lectures: De Anima Brutorum, on Natural Philosophy; De Julio Caesare, on Moral Philosophy; and De Amore Dei, on Religion.] As I shall from that time be less interrupted by business not of my own choosing, I have drawn up for myself a scheme of studies from, which I do not intend, for some years at least, to very. I am perfectly come over to your opinion that there are many truths it is not worth while to know. Curiosity, indeed, might be a sufficient plea for our laying out some time upon them, if we had half a dozen centuries of life to come; but methinks it is great ill-husbandry to spend a considerable part of the small pittance now allowed us in what makes us neither a quick nor a sure return.

'From the nature of liberty and free will we may deduce a very possible and satisfactory (perhaps the only possible just) account of the origin of evil. 'There are, and necessarily must be, some original, intrinsic agreements and disagreements, fitnesses and unfitnesses, of certain things and circumstances, to and with each other; which are antecedent to all positive institutions, founded on the very nature of those things and circumstances, considered in themselves, and in their relation to each other. 'Farther: it noway derogated from any one perfection of an infinite Being to endow other beings which he made with such a power as we call liberty -- that is, to furnish them with such capacities, dispositions, and principles of action, that it should be possible for them either to observe or to deviate from those eternal rules and measures of fitness and agreeableness, with respect to certain things and circumstances, which were so conformable to the infinite rectitude of his own will, and which infinite reason must necessarily discover. Now, evil is a deviation from those measures of eternal, unerring order and reason; not to choose what is worthy to be chosen, and is accordingly chose by such a will as the divine. And, to bring this about, no more is necessary than the exerting certain acts of that power we call free will. By which power we are enabled to choose or refuse, and to determine ourselves to action accordingly. Therefore, without having recourse to any ill principle, we may fairly account for the origin of evil from the possibility of a various use of our liberty; even as that capacity or possibility itself is ultimately founded on the defectibility and finiteness of a created nature.'--I am, dear sir, Your dutiful and affectionate Son.

To Ann Granville Date: LINCOLN COLLEGE, September 27 [1730]. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1730) Author: John Wesley --- What can Selima think of my long silence Will it admit of any honorable interpretation Can you believe that any business is of such importance as to excuse it in the least degree That I might not seem utterly inexcusable, I have been several times for throwing everything by; and should have done it had I not been persuaded that you would not condemn me unheard. Every day since my return hither I have been engaged in business of far greater concern than life or death; and business which, as it could not be delayed, so no one else could do it for me. Had it not been for this, I should long before now have returned my sincerest thanks to Selima, which are due to her on so many accounts that I know not where to begin. Happy indeed should I have been, had it been my lot to meet you once more in that delightful vale! What we could, we did. The places where she was, we visited more than once. And though Selima herself was not there, yet there we could find the remembrance of her. The more I think of you, the more convinced I am that here at least I am not guilty of flattery when I mention the vast advantage you have over me in gratitude as well as humility. The least desire of being serviceable to you is received by you as a real service, and acknowledged in so obliging a manner that at the same time I am quite ashamed of doing so little to deserve it. You give me an inexpressible pleasure. How differently turned is my mind! how little moved with the most valuable benefits! In this, too, give me of your spirit, Selima: let me imitate as well as admire.

SIR, -- I am almost afraid to own my having had both your letters, lest I should forfeit that good opinion that I extremely desire Cyrus should always have of Aspasia. I must farther confess that, had I not received the second letter, I should not have had courage to have wrote. I am but too sensible how unequal I am to the task. Could I, like our inimitable dear Varanese, express my sentiments, with what pleasure should I agree to the obliging request you make! But why should I be afraid of your superior understanding when I know at the same time the delight you take in not only entertaining but improving all those you converse with Then take me into your protection. Look on me as one surrounded with infirmities and imperfections, who flies to you for assistance against the assaults of vanity and passion. If you are desirous I should think you my friend, let this be the trial of it, not to leave any of my follies unreproved. I shall not scruple to discover to you those many defects which on a longer acquaintance with me your own observation must have pointed out to you; and it is no small argument of the great desire I have of improvement that I will run so great a hazard, for certainly you will value me less when you know how weak I am. You have no reason to make an apology for recommending the book you mention (which I suppose was the Bishop of Cork's). I have not yet read it; but I shall wait with impatience for the Abstract [See previous letter and that of Feb. 13, 1731.] you promise me, which I am sure will very well deserve the time I shall bestow in reading of it. My stay in Gloucester is uncertain; but when we go to town we shall call at Oxford, where we shall not fail of inquiring after Cyrus and Araspes. Selima adds: Aspasia is called away before she has finished her letter, and has not said one word for Selima, who thinks of Cyrus and Araspes with that esteem their merit justly claims, desires always to be thought their friend, and wishes Selima was worthy of it. When we go to Oxford, we don't know at what college to inquire after our agreeable friends. Mrs. Pendarves writes: GLOUCASTETR, October 26 [1730].

To Mrs. Pendarves Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1731) Author: John Wesley --- February 11 [1731]. 'Tis as impossible for us to remember as we ought our last obligation to Aspasia and Selima as it is to forget it; and that sure can never be--no, 'not in the land where all things are forgotten.' Even there we hope to remember, and with a more tender regard than we are here capable of, to whom we owe in great measure many changes in ourselves, of which we shall then feel the full advantage: who they were that so nobly assisted us in our great work in wearing off several stains from our nature; that so strongly recommended, by that irresistible argument example, whatsoever is honorable or lovely. There are few, except the harsher, passions of our souls which you did not engage in those late happy moments: but none more than our wonder; our joy itself was not greater than our admiration. That London is the worst place under heaven for preserving a Christian temper any one will immediately think who observes that there can be none where its professed, irreconcilable enemies, the lust of the eye and the pride of life, are more artfully and forcibly recommended. Yet even here you retain a constant sense what manner of spirit we are to be of. In the utmost affluence of whatever the world can afford to chain down your affections to it, the whole tenor of your words and actions shows they are reserved for sublimer objects.

To Mrs. Pendarves Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1731) Author: John Wesley --- February 19 [1731]. Yes, it is better to assure Aspasia now, though it be but in one line, that I am sensible of her strange goodness in thus preventing me a second time, than to put off still what, could it have been avoided, ought not to have been delayed a moment. But what can I do, thus hemmed in as I am with business over and above my own I am persuaded you would not condemn me, Aspasia, did you know how many days pass over my head in which I have not one poor hour from five to seven but what is engaged long before it comes. Yet never shall any engagement of any kind make me so false both to justice and friendship as to neglect any commands which I may have the pleasure of receiving from Aspasia or Selima. That particular .one which your last gives me leave to expect, I should earnestly have requested myself had not you mentioned it first. O Aspasia, how gladly should I receive into my soul your ignorance of some points in philosophy could ignorance of pride, ingratitude, and passion pass at the same time into (I dare hardly say) Your friend, CYRUS. When Aspasia or Selima is the theme', I speak the sense of Araspes in my own. Adieu. Mrs. Pendarves replies: NEW BOND STREET, April 4, 1731.

I had rather expose my own ignorance in writing than not hear from Cyrus and Araspes, whose letters give so much pleasure and improvement to your friends. Beside, at present I have my mother's commands to warrant my own inclination. She orders me to be very particular in her acknowledgements of the last letter she received from you. We were extremely vexed when we came [to Stanton] to find our agreeable friends had left it. [He was at Stanton on April 19.] Except that disappointment, our journey was as prosperous as we could wish. But my sister was not with us. The weakness we felt at parting we endeavored to correct by saying, Would not Cyrus blame us for this The reflection dried our tears; but, I must confess sincerely, it did not ease our pain. Is not this wrong in us Did I (for my sister has more fortitude) make a proper progress in Christianity, the things of this world would certainly be more indifferent to me than I find they are. How shall I learn the happiness of being above trifles Nobody can so well point out the way to me as yourself. But I could not make such a request did I not know how ready you are to do good. I have not had the pleasure of a letter since I came home from our valuable Sappho, [Miss Sally Kirkham (1699-1764), eldest daughter of the Rev. Lionel Kirkham, Rector of Stanton. In

It is easy to observe that almost every one thinks that rule totally needless which he does not need himself; and as to the Christian spirit itself, almost every one calls that degree of it which he does not himself aim at, enthusiasm. If, therefore, we plead for either (not as if we thought the former absolutely needful, neither as if we had attained the latter), it is no great wonder that they who are not for us in practice should be against us. If you, who are a less prejudiced judge, have perceived us faulty in this matter, too superstitious or enthusiastic, or whatever it is to be called, we earnestly desire to be speedily informed of our error, that we may no longer spend our strength on that which profiteth not. Or whatever there may be on the other hand, in which you have observed us to be too remiss, that likewise we desire to know as soon as possible. This is a subject which we would understand with as much accuracy as possible; it being hard to say which is of the worse consequence, -- the being too strict, the really carrying things too far, the wearying ourselves and spending our strength in burdens that are unnecessary; or the being frightened by those terrible words from what, if not directly necessary, would at least be useful.

To Ann Granville Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1731) Author: John Wesley --- June 17 [1731]. In what words can I express my thanks to Selima for the favorable opinion she entertains of myself, of which she has given me so obliging a proof, as I extremely desired but knew not how to ask for Perhaps you don't know the inconvenience you are bringing upon yourself --- that your generosity will but embolden me to ask more. Yet thus I can assure you it will be: your letters will in one sense never satisfy me. But the oftener you favor me (if you should please to do it again), the more earnestly I shall desire it. You have already effectually convinced me of this--that it may be said with equal justice of every sort of conversation with Aspasia or you, ' It brings to its sweetness no satiety.' That the tearing asunder of such friendships as these should occasion a very sensible pain is surely the effect both of nature and reason, which don't require us to be without passions (no, be it a Roman virtue to be 'without natural affection '), but to proportion them to the occasion. Indeed, we are not required by reason to grieve on the severest occasion 'as those without hope': we have a good hope that, severe as it is, it is no less merciful--nay, more so; since no pain approaches a Christian but to pave the way for more than equal pleasure.

O Selima, teach me to submit to such a trial, if ever it should be my portion: tell me how you let yours down to such capacities, and sustain the insipidness of such conversations, how you do to possess your soul in patience, when the floods of impertinence are around you. I have often wondered how so active a spirit as yours, that was not made for a common share of glory, but to force its way through all impediments to the heights of knowledge and virtue--how such a spirit as yours could bear with calmness to have its flight stopped in the mid-way by those mere children of earth, who will not take pains to be even as the angels of God in heaven; nay, who perhaps would not be angels if they might, since 'tis sure those ancient heirs of salvation are therefore the most happy because they are the most active of all created beings. I have lately had the pleasure of two letters from Aspasia, [July 21 and 29.] and hoped for a still greater in waiting upon her next week; but her last informed me she is out of town, and does not return this fortnight, before which time I must leave it. I believe Providence is more careful of me than I am of myself, and knowing that, were I to see Aspasia or Selima often, I could not possibly act up to the favorable opinion they are pleased to entertain of us, removes me (for my interest, though against my choice) from the opportunities of betraying my weakness. If I have fewer opportunities, too, of expressing my gratitude in writing than I could wish, let it not deprive me of the pleasure of sometimes hearing from Selima, yet let me steal a few moments from you. I am sure none of them that converse with you (on however so many accounts besides you may give them the preference) are more thankful for that favor than Your most obliged and most obedient CYRUS.

To Mrs. Pendarves Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1731) Author: John Wesley --- September 28 [1731]. I could not be unmindful of Aspasia in the stormy weather we had at the beginning of this month; though I did not receive your last till near three weeks after, when you too, I hope, had ended your journey. 'Tis not strange that one who knows how to live should not be afraid to die; since the sting of death is sin. Rather it would have been strange if Aspasia had been afraid, if either her nature or her faith had failed her: as well knowing that where death is the worst of ills there it is the greatest of blessings. I am very sensible of the confidence you repose in me, in telling me the whole of your friend's case-illness. The symptoms you mention are these: (1) the expecting great civilities from her acquaintance, with an aptness to think herself neglected by them; (2) a deep sadness upon the apprehension of their unkindness and the supposed loss of their affections, which often carries her to such a length as to believe that God will forsake her too; (3) a desire to be equally well dressed with her companions, though she has not an equal fortune. The first question is, therefore, what disorder it is that is the cause of these effects. One person I knew who had every one of these symptoms: she expected great civilities, and was extremely apt to think her acquaintance neglected her and showed less respect to her than to other people; the apprehension of whose unkindness, joining with ill-health, sometimes made her deeply melancholy. I have often known her pained at being worse dressed than her companions, and have heard her say more than once that few trials she had met with in her life were harder to be borne.

To Ann Granville Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1731) Author: John Wesley --- October 3 [1731]. 'Tis in vain for me to think I shall ever be able to tell Selima how much I am obliged to her for her last. Why do you thus add to the obligations that were before too great to admit of any return I am now entirely reconciled to my late disappointment by the charming manner in which you mention it, and share in the pleasure of your lovely conversations while you tell me I was thought of in them. Nothing could give me a livelier satisfaction, unless I should once again meet Selima, and assure her that those are some of the happiest hours of my life when I can give any proof of the value I have for her friendship, and that no employment is more agreeable to me than that which gives me any hopes of improving it. An account I received some time since from Aspasia (for whose safety you will believe I am sincerely glad [Mrs. Pendarves went to Ireland in September. See letter of Aug. 26.]) so much resembles yours that I have been in some doubt whether you did not speak of the same plan. [See letters of July 29, Aug. 12 and 26, and previous letter.] Whether you did or no, I wish that you have not both much too favorable an opinion of me. I am sure I should of myself, did I think it in my power ' to heal the broken in heart, to use any words that would cure a wounded spirit, or be a medicine for that sickness.' Nor, indeed, have I time to weigh so nice a case thoroughly; do not, then, be surprised, good Selima, if while I dare not wholly decline what you desire, yet I am forced to do it in so imperfect a manner as neither suits the importance of the thing itself nor my obligations to the person that desires it. One that is generous, charitable, and devout, that has an easy fortune and many sincere friends, is yet unhappy; something lurking within poisons all the sweets, nor can she taste any of the goodness she enjoys. She strives against it, but in vain. She spends her strength, but to 'no purpose: her enemy still renews his strength: nature even--

Now give me leave to say that I can't find out the advantage of losing the conversation of particular sensible and virtuous friends. Their words, their example excite us on to goodness; they blow up and keep alive those sparks of religion which are too apt (with sorrow I speak it) to grow faint and languid. I can recollect many instances where they have been of advantage to me. At church their attention has increased mine. At home they have begun good conversations that I have been the better for; as we were often together, we used to assist each other in bearing a multitude of impertinence that I am now forced to support singly. Now, have I not more reason to imagine 'twas rather for their good than mine that they were removed Now, I fear I show great arrogance to deny anything you say, but I only make this objection in order to be more fully convinced. No one can do it so soon as Cyrus. His arguments are so plain and sensible, and withal so well expressed, they please the fancy while they inform the understanding; which is what I very seldom have met with before, most instructive things being dry and tedious--at least to me, who cannot, like my dear Sappho, search for through all her obscure recesses. I am now reading a book I want your opinion of. 'Tis Mr. Burkitt's Explanation of the New Testament; he calls it Expository Notes with Practical Observations. Sure Cyrus cannot sit without a fire this weather. I hope the good Society prospers; one way I'm sure they do. I often think of them, especially when the cold makes me shrink. They are those that are chosen of peculiar grace; the influence of it will, I hope, extend to their weaker brethren. The last letter I had from Aspasia she said she was very much concerned she had not writ to you, and desired me to assure the good brothers of her friendship and good wishes, as does my mother, who is very much out of order with a cold. The last time I heard from Sappho she was well. Is not Araspes' hymn quite charming You have not sent your poetic herd so far but you can call them in whenever you please.

Cyrus may be certain I shall never forget him in the only way I can show my gratitude to him. Oh that I had reason to think my prayers would be as efficacious as his with[out] doubt are l What is uttered with so much real piety must be successful for himself and for his friends. There I hope he will always place

When I observe how fast life flies away, and how slow improvement comes, I think one can never be too much afraid of dying before one has learned to live; I mean, even in the course of nature. For were I sure that 'the silver cord' should not be violently 'loosed,' that 'the wheel' should not ' be broken at the cistern,' till it was quite worn away by its own motion, yet what a time would this give for such a work A moment to transact the business of eternity ! What are forty years in comparison of this So that were I sure of what never man yet was sure of, how little would it alter the case! How justly still might I cry out: Downward I hasten to my destined place; There none obtain Thy aid, none sing Thy praise! Soon shall I lie in death's deep ocean drowned: Is mercy there, is sweet forgiveness found O save me yet, while on the brink I stand; Rebuke these storms, and set me safe on land ! O make my longings and Thy mercy sure! Thou art the God of power. [Prior's Considerations on Part of the 88th Psalm.] A year ago Mr. Morgan was exceedingly well pleased with the thought of dying shortly. He will not now bear to have it named, though he can neither sleep, read, stand, nor sit. Yet without hands, or feet, or head, or heart, he is very sure his illness is not increased. Surely now he is a burthen to himself and almost useless in the world; his discharge cannot be far off. Dear mother, there is but one cause of uneasiness which I sometimes find in your behavior towards me. You perform the noblest offices of love for me, and yet blame the Fountain from whence they flow. You have more than once said you loved me too well and would strive to love me less. Now this it is I complain of. You do not think natural affection evil in itself; far from it. But you say you have but little time to stay in the world, and therefore should not have much affection for anything in it. Most true: not any of those things which perish with the world. But am I one of those

It is true, indeed, that 'the devil hates offensive war most '; and that whoever tries to rescue more than his own soul from his hands, will have more enemies and meet with greater opposition than if he was content with 'having his own life for a prey.' That I try to do this is likewise certain; but I cannot say whether I 'rigorously impose any observances on others ' till I know what that phrase means. What I do is this: when I am entrusted with a person who is first to understand and practice, and then to teach, the law of Christ, I endeavor, by an intermixture of reading and conversation, to show him what that law is--that is, to renounce all insubordinate love of the world, and to love and obey God with all his strength. When he appears seriously sensible of this, I propose to him the means God hath commanded him to use in order to that end; and, a week, or a month, or a year after, as the state of his soul seems to require it, the several prudential means recommended by wise and good men. As to the times, order, measure, and manner wherein these are to be proposed, I depend upon the Holy Spirit to direct me, in and by my own experience and reflection, joined to the advices of my religious friends here and elsewhere. Only two rules it is my principle to observe in all cases: first, to begin, continue, and end all my advices in the spirit of meekness, as knowing that' the wrath ' or severity' of man worketh not the righteousness of God '; and, secondly, to add to meekness longsuffering, in pursuance of a rule which I fixed long since--never to give up any one till I have tried him at least ten years. How long hath God had pity on thee

'Tis true they have not yet laughed your son out of all his diligence; but how long it will be before they have, God knows. They zealously endeavor it at all convenient opportunities; and temporal views are as unable to support him under such an attack as his slender notions of religion are; of which, he often says, he thinks he shall have enough if he constantly says his prayers at home and in the chapel. As to my advice on this or any other head, they had secured him pretty wall before; and your authority added to theirs has supplied him with armor of proof against it. I now beg to know what you would have me do. Shall I sit still, and let him swim down the stream Or shall I plunge in, bound as I am hand and foot, and oppose myself to his company, his inclinations, and his father

To Richard Morgan Date: March 15, 1734. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1734) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- A journey which I was obliged to begin very soon after the receipt of yours was the occasion of my delaying so long to answer it, which I should otherwise have done immediately. I am satisfied you never designed to give me any uneasiness, either by your last or any of your preceding letters, and am very sensible that the freedom you used therein proceeded from a much kinder intention. And should you ever say anything which I could not approve of, I should as soon as possible mention it to you as the only sure way either to prevent any misunderstanding between us, or at least to hinder its long continuance. As to your son's being a member of our little Society, I once more assure you with all plainness that, were you as much for it as you appear to be against it, I should think it my duty to oppose it to the utmost. I do not conceive him to be any ways qualified for it, and would as soon advise one of his dispositions to go and convert the Indies as to minister to his fellow Christians in the manner wherein my dear friends by the grace of God endeavor to do. I have over and over pressed him to cultivate his acquaintance with Mr. Batteley, [See letter of Jan. 31.] and several other gentlemen of Christ Church, whose characters I am well acquainted with, though little or not at all with their persons. I have seen an answer from Mr. Hulton of Chester to his letter concerning the greyhound, which I hope we shall very shortly have an opportunity of returning to him. Mr. Morgan constantly attends public prayers, nor do I know that he omits private, or willfully runs into any known sins of commission; and I trust he never will.

15. But for the proof of every one of these weighty truths experience is worth a thousand reasons. I see, I feel them every day. Sometimes I cannot do good to others because I am unwilling to do it: shame or pain is in the way; and I do not desire to serve God at so dear a rate. Sometimes I cannot do the good I desire to do because I am in other respects too unholy. I know within myself, were I fit to be so employed, God would employ me in this work. But my heart is too unclean for such mighty works to be wrought by my hands. Sometimes I cannot accomplish the good I am employed in, because I do not pray more, and more fervently; and sometimes, even when I do pray, and that instantly, because I am not worthy that my prayer should be heard. Sometimes I dare not attempt to assist my neighbor, because I know the narrowness of my heart, that it cannot attend to many things without utter confusion and dissipation of thought. And a thousand times have I been mercifully withheld from success in the things I have attempted, because, were one so proud and vain enabled to gain others, he would lose his own soul.

To his Mother Date: OXON, January 13, 1735 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1735) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR MOTHER, -- Give my leave to say once more that our folks do, and will I supose to the end of the chapter, mistake the question. Supposing him changed Say they. Right: but that supposition has not proof yet - whether it may have: when it has, then we may come to our other point, whether all this be not providence, i.e. blessing. And whether we are empowered so to judge, condemn, and execute an imprudent Christian, as God forbid I should ever use a Turk or Deist.

Now, that I can as a clergyman better serve God and His Church in my present station I have all reasonable evidence. [See letters of Feb. 15, 1733, and Dec. 10, 1734.]

To Dr. Burton Date: October 10, 1735. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1735) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- I have been hitherto unwilling to mention the grounds of my design of embarking for Georgia, for two reasons,---one, because they were such as I know few men would judge to be of any weight: the other, because I was afraid of making favorable judges think of me above what they ought to think; and what a snare this must be to my own soul I know by dear-bought experience. But, on farther reflection, I am convinced that I ought to speak the truth with all boldness, even though it should appear foolishness to the world, as it has done from the beginning; and that, whatever danger there is in doing the will of God, He will support me under it. In His name, therefore, and trusting in His defense, I shall plainly declare the thing as it is. My chief motive, to which all the rest are subordinate, is the hope of saving my own soul. I hope to learn the true sense of the gospel of Christ by preaching it to the heathen. They have no comments to construe away the text; no vain philosophy to corrupt it; no luxurious, sensual, covetous, ambitious expounders to soften its unpleasing truths, to reconcile earthly-mindedness and faith, the Spirit of Christ and the spirit of the world. They have no party, no interest to serve, and are therefore fit to receive the gospel in its simplicity. They are as little children, humble, willing to learn, and eager to do the will of God; and consequently they shall know of every doctrine I preach whether it be of God. By these, therefore, I hope to learn the purity of that faith which was once delivered to the saints; the genuine sense and full extent of those laws which none can understand who mind earthly things.

To General Oglethorpe Date: SAVANNAH, August 23, 1736. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1736) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- I choose to write rather than speak, that I may not say too much. I find it utterly impossible anything should be kept secret unless both parties are resolved upon it. What fell out yesterday is already known to every family in Frederica; but to many it has been represented in such a light that 'tis easy to know whence the representation comes. Now, sir, what can I do more Though I have given my reputation to God, I must not absolutely neglect it. The treatment I have met with was not barely an assault: you know one part of it was felony. I can't see what I can do but desire an open hearing in the face of all my countrymen of this place. If you (to whom I can gladly entrust my life and my all in this land) are excepted against as partial, let a jury be empanelled, and upon a full inquiry determine what such breaches of the law deserve. -- I am, sir, Your obliged and obedient servant.

To General Oglethorpe Date: SAVANNAH, February 24, 1737. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1737) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- You apprehended strong opposition before you went hence; and, unless we are misinformed, you have found it. Yesterday morning I read a letter from London, wherein it was asserted that Sir Robert had turned against you [He sailed for England on Nov. 23, 1736, and evidently found Walpole unfriendly. Oglethorpe's work for Georgia was ' marred by some faults of temper and tact, but it was on the whole able, energetic, and fortunate ' (Lecky's England, ii. 132). Wesley's loyalty to Oglethorpe did not blind him to some blemishes in his behavior in Georgia; but he highly appreciated his work and policy there (Journal, i. 252-3n). Walpole was then First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer.] ; that the Parliament was resolved to make a severe scrutiny into all that has been transacted here; that the cry of the nation ran the same way; and that even the Trustees were so far from acknowledging the service you have done, that they had protested your bills, and charged you with misapplying the moneys you had received, and with gross mismanagement of the power wherewith you was entrusted. Whether these things are so or no I know not; for it is ill depending on a single evidence. But this I know, that if your scheme was drawn (which I shall not easily believe) from that first-born of hell, Nicholas Machiavel, as sure as there is a God that governs the earth, He will confound both it and you. If, on the contrary (as I shall hope, till strong proof appear), your heart was right before God, that it was your real design to promote the glory of God, by promoting peace and love among men, let not your heart be troubled; the God whom you serve is able to deliver you. Perhaps in some things you have shown you are but a man; perhaps I myself may have a little to complain of: but oh, what a train of benefits have I received to lay in the balance against it! I bless God that ever you was born. I acknowledge His exceeding mercy in casting me into your hands.

To Mrs. Chapman Date: SAVANNAH, March 29, 1737. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1737) Author: John Wesley --- True friendship is doubtless stronger than death, else yours could never have subsisted still in spite of all opposition, and even after thousands of miles are interposed between us. In the last proof you gave of it there are a few things which I think it lies on me to mention: as for the rest, my brother is the proper person to clear them up, as I suppose he has done long ago.

To Mrs. Williamson (Sophia Hopkey) Date: SAVANNAH, July 5, 1737. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1737) Author: John Wesley --- If the sincerity of friendship is best to be known from the painful offices, then there could not be a stronger proof of mine than that I gave you on Sunday; except that which I am going to give you now, and which you may perhaps equally misinterpret. Would you know what I dislike in your past or present behavior You have always heard my thoughts as freely as you asked them. Nay, much more freely; you know it well, and so you shall do as long as I can speak or write. In your present behavior I dislike (1) your neglect of half the public service, which no man living can compel you to; (2) your neglect of fasting, which you once knew to be an help to the mind without any prejudice to the body; (3) your neglect of almost half the opportunity of communicating which you have lately had. But these things are small in comparison of what I dislike in your past behavior. For (1) You told me over and over you had entirely conquered your inclination for Mr. Mellichamp. Yet at that very time you had not conquered it. (2) You told me frequently you had no design to marry Mr. Williamson. Yet at the very time you spoke you had the design. (3) In order to conceal both these things from me, you went through a course of deliberate dissimulation. Oh how fallen! How changed! Surely there was a time when in Miss Sophy's life there was no guile. Own these facts and own your fault, and you will be in my thoughts as if they had never been. If you are otherwise-minded, I shall still be your friend, though I cannot expect you should be mine.

However, 'let the fault be divided between you and Kempis.’ No: if I understood Kempis wrong, it was your part, who discerned my spirit under that mistake, to have explained him and set me right. I ask pardon, sir, if I had said anything disrespectful. -- I am, reverend sir, Your most obedient servant. William Law replies [8] May 1738. SIR, -- Without the smallest degree of disregard either to you or your letter, I had not sent you an answer to it had it not been for the part of it where you say there were two persons present with Mr. Bhler and myself. There were two persons present, but not one witness; for we spoke only Latin, and they both declared to me they understood not Latin. I mentioned not your qualification for translating Kempis with the least intention to reproach either your design or performance, but only to show you that it deeply engaged your attention to those very truths which you suppose you were a stranger to through my conversation. If you remember the Theologia Germunica so imperfectly as only to remember ‘something of Christ our Pattern, but nothing express of Christ our Atonement,’ it is no wonder that you can remember....

To his Brother Charles Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1738) Author: John Wesley --- COLEN, [Cologne.] June 28, 1738. DEAR BROTHER, -- You will send my mother, wherever she is, her letter by the first opportunity. By the conversation I have had with the Brethren that journey with us, as well as with those at Ysselstein and at Amsterdam, I find the judgment of their Church is: (1) That we ought to distinguish carefully, both in thinking and speaking, between faith (absolutely speaking), which is one thing; justifying or saving faith, which is a second thing (and ought to be called, not faith absolutely, but always justifying or saving faith); the assurance of faith, where we know and feel that we are justified; and the being born again, which they say is a fourth thing, and often distant in time (as well as in the notion of it) from all the rest. (2) That a man may have, and frequently has, justifying faith before he has the assurance that he is justified. My dear brother, pray (you and all the brethren) for us, that all things may work together for our good, and that we may be more and more rooted in faith, joyful through hope, and grounded in charity. Adieu.

To Arthur Bedford Date: LONDON, September 28, 1738. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1738) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND SIR, -- 1. A few days ago I met with a sermon of yours, said to be written against me. It is entitled The Doctrine of Assurance. When I first read those three propositions there laid down, -- ‘(1) that an assurance of salvation is not of the essence of faith; (2) that a true believer may wait long before he hath it; and (3) that, after he hath it, it may be weakened and intermitted by many distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions,’ -- I thought there was nothing herein but what I both believed and preached. But in going on I was convinced of the contrary; and saw clearly that, by this one phrase, ‘assurance of salvation,’ we meant entirely different things: you understanding thereby ‘an assurance that we shall persevere in a state of salvation’; whereas I mean no more by that term than ‘an assurance that we are now in such a state.’ 2. How easily, then, might a short question have prevented this whole dispute and saved you the trouble of a mere ignoratio denchi for almost forty pages together! As to the assurance you speak of, neither my brother, nor I, nor any of our friends that I know of, hold it; no, nor the Moravian Church, whose present judgment I have had better opportunity to know than the author of what is called your Catechism. I dare not affirm so much of this assurance as that ‘it is given to very few’; for I believe it is given to none at all. I find it not in the Book of God. Yea, I take it to be utterly contrary thereto, as implying the impossibility of falling from grace; from asserting which fatal doctrine I trust the God whom I serve will always deliver me.

3. That assurance of which alone I speak, I should not choose to call an assurance of salvation, but rather (with the Scriptures) the assurance of faith. And even this I believe is not of the essence of faith, but a distinct gift of the Holy Ghost, whereby God shines upon His own work and shows us that we are justified through faith in Christ. If any one chooses to transpose the words, and to term this, instead of the assurance of faith, the faith of assurance, I should not contend with him for a phrase: though I think the scriptural words are always the best; and in this case particularly, because otherwise we may seem to make two faiths, whereas St. Paul knew but of one. 4. This pfa pste, [Heb. x. 22: ‘The full assurance of faith.’] however we translate it, I believe is neither more nor less than hope; or a conviction, wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, that we have a measure of the true faith in Christ, and that, as He is already made justification unto us, so, if we continue to watch, strive, and pray, He will gradually become our sanctification here and our full redemption hereafter. This assurance I believe is given to some in a smaller, to others in a larger degree; to some also sooner, to others later, according to the counsels of His will. But, since it is promised to all, I cannot doubt but it will be given to all that diligently seek it. I cannot doubt but all ‘who truly believe in Christ Jesus and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before Him, will in due time be assured that they are in a state of grace, and may persevere therein unto salvation, by the Holy Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God.’

Some measure of this faith, which bringeth salvation or victory over sin, and which implies peace and trust in God through Christ, I now enjoy by His free mercy; though in very deed it is in me but as a grain of mustard-seed: for the pfa pste -- the seal of the Spirit, the love of God shed abroad in my heart, and producing joy in the Holy Ghost, ' joy which no man taketh away, joy unspeakable and full of glory,'--this witness of the Spirit I have not; but I patiently wait for it. I know many who have already received it--more than one or two in the very hour we were praying for it. And, having seen and spoken with a cloud of witnesses abroad as well as in my own country, I cannot doubt but that believers who wait and pray for it will find these scriptures fulfilled in themselves. My hope is that they will be fulfilled in me: I build on Christ, the Rock of Ages; on His sure mercies described in His Word; and on His promises, all which I know are yea and amen. Those who have not yet received joy in the Holy Ghost, the love of God, and the plerophory of faith (any or all of which I take to be the witness of the Spirit with our spirit that we are the sons of God), I believe to be Christians in that imperfect sense wherein I may call myself such; and I exhort them to pray that God would give them also ‘to rejoice in hope of the glory of God,’ and to feel ‘His love shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto them.’

On men I build not: neither on Matilda Chipman's word, [Apparently the woman who dreamt that a ball of fire fell upon her, and burst and fired her soul. See Priestley's Letters, pp. 88-90.] whom I have not talked with five minutes in my life; nor on anything peculiar in the weak, well-meant relation of William Hervey, [A younger brother of the Rev. James Hervey, who in June 1737 was looking out for a trade and a master to set yourself to' in London. Hervey spent the winter of 1751-2 in Miles Lane, London, with William, who was with his brother when he died in 1758. See Tyerman's Oxford Methodists, pp. 213, 26o, 322-3; and letter of March 2o, 1739, to James Hervey.] who yet is a serious, humble-acting Christian. But have you been building on these Yes; I find them more or less in almost every letter you have written on the subject. Yet, were all that has been said on ‘visions, dreams, and balls of fire’ to be fairly proposed in syllogisms, I believe it would not prove a jot more on one than on the other side of the question. O brother, would to God you would leave disputing concerning the things which you know not (if, indeed, you know them not), and beg of God to fill up what is yet wanting in you! Why should not you also seek till you receive ‘that peace of God which passeth all understanding’ Who shall hinder you, notwithstanding the manifold temptations, from rejoicing ' with joy unspeakable, by reason of glory' Amen, Lord Jesus! -May you and all who are near of kin to you (if you have it not already) feel His love shed abroad in your heart by His Spirit which dwelleth in you, and be sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of your inheritance. -- I am Yours and my sister's most affectionate Brother.

To Benjamin Ingram and James Hutton Date: LINCOLN COLLEGE, November 16, 1738. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1738) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BRETHERN INGHAM AND HUTON, -- Be ye strong in the Lord and in the power of His might! There begins to be a little revival of His power here also. The few gownsmen who meet love one another and press forward toward the prize of our high calling. But I fear they do not all build on the true foundation; for some seem still to be establishing their own righteousness, as the joint cause (at least) with that of our Lord, of their acceptance with God. Charles Kinchin stands clear of this charge, and is full of love for souls and of prayer. But neither (I fear) does he speak the truth as it is in Jesus. For he (as our brother Hutchings) mightily insists, both in conversation and preaching, that no one can be justified without knowing it, and that none is born again or has saving faith till he has the full assurance of faith, continual joy in the Holy Ghost, and the immediate witness of the Spirit with his spirit. Oh when will our Lord give us to be of one mind and one soul, to speak and think the same thing!

To his Brother Samuel Date: OXON, November 30, 1738. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1738) Author: John Wesley --- I believe every Christian who has not yet received it should pray for the witness of God's Spirit with his spirit that he is a child of God. In being a child of God, the pardon of his sins is included; therefore I believe the Spirit of God will witness this also. That this witness is from God, the very terms imply; and this witness I believe is necessary for my salvation. How far invincible ignorance may excuse others I know not. But this, you say, is delusive and dangerous, because it encourages and abets idle visions and dreams. It encourages, true--accidentally, but not essentially. And that it does this accidentally, or that weak minds may pervert it to an idle use, is no objection against it; for so they may pervert every truth in the oracles of God, more especially that dangerous doctrine of Joel cited by St. Peter: ‘It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.’ Such visions, indeed, as you mention are given up: does it follow that visions and dreams in general ‘are bad branches of a bad root’ God forbid I This would prove more than you desire.

To his Brother Samuel Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1739) Author: John Wesley --- [January] 1739. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- ... I think Bishop Bull's sermon on the Witness of the Spirit (against the Witness of the Spirit it should rather be entitled) is full of gross perversions of Scripture and manifest contradictions both to Scripture and experience. I find more persons day by day who experience a clear evidence of their being in a state of salvation. But I never said this continues equally clear in all as long as they continue in a state of salvation. Some, indeed, have testified, and the whole tenor of their life made their testimony unexceptionable, that from that hour they have felt no agonies at all, no anxious fears, no sense of dereliction. Others have. But I much fear we begin our dispute at the wrong end. I fear you dissent from the fundamental Articles of the Church of England. I know Bishop Bull does. I doubt you do not hold justification by faith alone. If not, neither do you hold what our Articles teach concerning the extent and guilt of original sin; neither do you feel yourself a lost sinner: and if we begin not here, we are building on the sand. Oh may the God of love, if my sister or you are otherwise-minded, reveal even this unto you. Your affectionate Brother.

280).] were going about to all parts and confirming the unfaithful. At four we met them (without design), and withstood them again. From five to six we were confirming the brethren. At six I expounded at Mrs. Ford's; as I designed to do at Mrs. Compton's at seven. But Mr. Washington was got thither before me, and just beginning to read Bishop Bull against the Witness of the Spirit. He told me he was authorized by the minister of the parish so to do. I advised all that valued their souls to go away; and, perceiving it to be the less evil of the two, that they who remained might not be. perverted, I entered directly into the controversy, touching both the cause and the fruits of justification. In the midst of the dispute James Mears's wife began to be in pain. I prayed with her a little when Mr. Washington was gone; and then (having comforted the rest as I was enabled) we went down to Sister Thomas's. In the way Mrs. Mears's pains so increased that she could not avoid crying out aloud in the street. With much difficulty we got her to Mrs. Shrieve's (where also Mr. Washington had been before us). We made our request known to God, and He heard us and sent her deliverance in the same hour. There was great power among us, and her husband also was set at liberty. Soon after, I felt such a damp strike into my soul (and so did Mrs. Compton and several others) as I do not remember to have ever found before. I believed the enemy was near us. We immediately cried to our Lord to stir up His power and come and help us. Presently Mrs. Shrieve fell into a strange agony both of body and mind; her teeth gnashed together; her knees smote each other; and her whole body trembled exceedingly. We prayed on, and within an hour the storm ceased. She now enjoys a sweet calm, having remission of sins, and knowing that her Redeemer liveth.

To his Brother Samuel Date: BRISTOL, April 4, 1739. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1739) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, -- I rejoice greatly at the temper with which you now write, and trust there is not only mildness but love also in your heart. If so, you shall know of this doctrine whether it be of God, though perhaps not by my ministry. To this hour you have pursued an ignoratio elenchi. Your assurance and mine are as different as light and darkness. I mean an assurance that I am now in a state of salvation; you an assurance that I shall persevere therein. The very definition of the term cuts off your second and third observation. As to the first, I would take notice: (1) No kind of assurance (that I know), or of faith, or repentance, is essential to their salvation who die infants. (2) I believe God is ready to give all true penitents who fly to His free grace in Christ a fuller sense of pardon than they had before they fell. I know this to be true of several; whether these are exempt cases, I know not. (3) Persons that were of a melancholy and gloomy constitution, even to some degree of madness, I have known in a moment (let it be called a miracle, I quarrel not) brought into a state of firm, lasting peace and joy.

Wednesday, 2nd, another mourner received comfort at Newgate. We afterwards went to a neighboring house, to read a letter wrote against me as a false teacher for opposing Predestination. A rigid asserter of it was present when a young woman came in (who had received remission of sins) all in tears and in deep anguish of spirit. She said she had been in torment all night by reasoning, and verily believed the devil had possession of her again. In the midst of our prayers she cried out, ‘He is gone, he is gone: I again rejoice in God my Savior.’ Just as we rose from giving thanks, another young woman reeled four or five steps and then dropped down. We prayed with her; she is now in deep poverty of spirit, groaning day and night for a new heart.

To his Brother Samuel Date: BRISTOL, May 10, 1739. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1739) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, -- The having abundance of work upon my hands is only a cause of my not writing sooner. The cause was rather my unwillingness to continue an unprofitable dispute. The gospel promises to you and me, and our children, and all that are afar off, even as many of those whom the Lord our God shall call as are not disobedient unto the heavenly vision, 'the witness of God's Spirit with their spirit that they are the children of God’ [See letters of Nov. 30, 1738, and Jan. 1739.]; that they are now at this hour all accepted in the Beloved: but it witnesses not that they shall be. It is an assurance of present salvation only; therefore not necessarily perpetual, neither irreversible. I am one of many witnesses of this matter of fact, that God does now make good this His promise daily, very frequently during a representation (how made I know not, but not to the outward eye) of Christ either hanging on the cross or standing on the right hand of God. And this I know to be of God, because from that hour the person so affected is a new creature both as to his inward tempers and outward life. ‘Old things are passed away, and all things become new.’ A very late instance of this I will give you. While we were praying at a Society here, on Tuesday the 1st instant, the power of God (so I call it) came so mightily among us that one, and another, and another fell down as thunder-struck. In that hour many that were in deep anguish of spirit were all filled with peace and joy. Ten persons, till then in sin, doubt, and fear, found such a change that sin had no more dominion over them; and, instead of the spirit of fear, they are now filled with that of love and joy and a sound mind. A Quaker who stood by was very angry at them, and was biting his lips and knitting his brows, when the Spirit of God came upon him also, so that he fell down as one dead. We prayed over him, and he soon lifted up his head with joy and joined with us in thanksgiving.

We immediately began praying for him, and then for all the despisers. As we returned, they hollowed and hissed us along the streets; but when any of them asked, ‘Which is he’ and I answered, ‘I am he,’ they were immediately silent. Ten or twelve fine ladies followed me into the passage of Richard Merchant's [See letter of May 14.] house. I turned back to them, and told them I supposed what they wanted was to look at me, which they were very welcome to do. Perceiving them then to be more serious, I added: ‘I do not expect the rich of this world to hear me; for I speak plain truth -- a thing you know little of, and do not desire to know.’ A few words more passed between us, and, I hope, not in vain. Wednesday, 6th, two men and one woman were baptized. [Diary: ‘10.45 Newgate, three christened; ... 9.45 [p.m.] with Mrs. Cooper, she spoke; 11 at Mr. Labbe's! 11 supper; 12’ (Journal, ii. 213).] About two thousand five hundred were at Baptist Mills, to whom I explained the 9th of St. John. In the evening, after our meeting in Baldwin Street, I went (in obedience to God's command by lot) to the house of Mrs. Cooper, the supposed prophetess. Her agitations were nothing near so violent as those of Mary Piewit are. [See Journal, ii. 136n.] She prayed awhile (as under the hand of God), and then spoke to me for above half an hour. What spirit she spoke by I know not. The words were good. Some of them were these: ‘Thou art yet in darkness. But yet a little while and I will rend the veil, and thou shalt see the King in His beauty.’ I felt no power while she spoke. Appearances are against her; but I judge nothing before the time.

7. These are some of those inward fruits of the Spirit which must be felt wheresoever they are; and, without these, I cannot learn from Holy Writ that any man is ‘born of the Spirit.’ I beseech you, sir, by the mercies of God, that if as yet you know nothing of such inward feelings, if you do not ' feel in yourself these mighty workings of the Spirit of Christ,' at least you would not contradict and blaspheme. When the Holy Ghost hath fervently kindled your love towards God, you will know these to be very sensible operations. As you hear the wind, and feel it too, 'while it strikes upon your bodily organs, you will know you are under the guidance of God's Spirit the same way -- namely, by feeling it in your soul: by the present peace and joy and love which you feel within, as well as by its outward and more distant effects. -- I am, &c.

5. Secondly, with regard to that faith through which we are saved, I have heard many of you say, ‘A man may have justifying faith and not know it.’ Others of you, who are now in England (particularly Mr. Molther), I have heard affirm [In the Preface to the Second Journal the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake. [See Journal, i. 430. Bhier, in a letter to Wesley, written several years later, denied that Molther ever held the opinions imputed to him (Moore's Wesley, i. 491n).]]* that ‘there is no such thing as weak faith; that there are no degrees in faith; that there is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt; that there is no justifying faith without the plerophory of faith, the clear, abiding witness of the Spirit; that there is no justifying faith where there is not, in the full, proper sense, a new heart; and that those who have not these two gifts are only awakened, not justified.’ 6. Thirdly, as to the way to faith, here are many among us whom your brethren have advised (what it is not to be supposed they would as yet speak to me, or in their public preaching) [The substance of the answer to this and the following paragraphs is: (I) That none ought to communicate till he has faith -- that is, a sure trust in the mercy of God through Christ. This is granting the charge. (2) That ‘if the Methodists hold this sacrament is a means of getting faith, they must act according to their persuasion.’ We do hold it, and know it to be so to many of those who are previously convinced of sin.]* not to use those ordinances which our Church terms means of grace till they have such a faith as implies a clean heart and excludes all possibility of doubting. They have advised them, till then, not to search the Scriptures, not to pray, not to communicate; and have often affirmed that to do these things is seeking salvation by works, and that, till these works are laid aside, no man can receive faith: for ‘no man’ (say they) ‘can do these things without trusting in them; if he does not trust in them, why does he do them’

To George Whitefield Date: LONDON, April 27, 1741. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1741) Author: John Wesley --- Would you have me deal plainly with you, my brother I believe you would: then, by the grace of God, I will. Of many things I find you are not rightly informed; of others you speak what you have not well weighed. ‘The Society room at Bristol,’ you say, ‘is adorned.’ How Why, with a piece of green cloth nailed to the desk, two sconces for eight candles each in the middle, and -- nay, I know no more. Now, which of these could be spared I cannot tell; nor would I desire either more adorning or less. But ‘lodgings are made for me or my brother.’ That is, in plain English, there is a little room by the school, where I speak with the people that come to me; and a garret, in which a bed is placed for me. And do you grudge me this Is this the voice of my brother, my son Whitefield You say, farther, ‘that the children at Bristol are clothed as well as taught.’ I am sorry for it; for the cloth is not paid for yet, and was bought without my consent or knowledge. ‘But those of Kingswood have been neglected.’ This is not so, notwithstanding the heavy debt which lay upon it. One master and one mistress have been in the house ever since it has been capable of receiving them; a second master was placed there some months since; and I have long been seeking for two proper mistresses: so that as much has been done, as matters stand, if not more, than I can answer to God and man. Well, but ‘you sent down Brother Cennick to be schoolmaster, whom I have turned out.' What, from being schoolmaster You know he never was so at all. You know he now neither designs nor desires it.

Put the case now that I should make reprisals, that I should deal with you as you have done with me, that I should publicly repeat all the wrong expressions Which I have heard from Predestinarians, what would follow Why, all that heard me would run from a Predestinarian as they would from a mad dog. But you are very safe; I cannot meet you here. This field you have all to yourself. I cannot dwell on those things, which have an immediate tendency to make you odious and contemptible. The general tenor both of my public and private exhortations, when I touch thereon at all (as even my enemies know if they would testify), is, ‘Spare the young man, even Absalom, for my sake.’

3. As to truth. How little have you regarded that golden rule ‘Let love be without dissimulation’! How much, very much, of reserve, darkness, and evasion has been in all your proceedings! so much that in very deed I know not now where to have you or how to understand what you say. I know not whether you receive the gospel as the adequate rule either of faith or practice. The good God have mercy upon you if you do or if you do not. To Him I commend my cause, and remain Your sincere friend.

To Mr. James Hutton, Bookseller, In Little Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1741) Author: John Wesley --- Wild Street, Near Clare Market, London. To a Clergyman [7] Sunday Morning, [ about 1741.] REVEREND SIR, -- A flying report which I heard last night occasions you this trouble. That I may not put you to any inconvenience (which I should be sorry to do; it would not be doing as I would be done to), I beg to know whether you have any scruples as to administering the Lord's Supper to, Reverend sir, Your brother and servant.

To Captain Robert Williams Date: LONDON, August 3, 1742. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1742) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- To prove that Robert Williams traded very largely during the time he was at Savannah, that he built several considerable buildings both at Savannah and other parts of the colony, that he greatly improved large tracts of land there, and was esteemed to have one of the chief settlements in the colony, you have not so much as quoted ‘common fame.’ So he that will believe it, let him believe it. But you have quoted common fame to support several charges against John Wesley, clerk: as, that he seduced its common persons settled there to idleness; that he used too great familiarities with Miss Hopkey, and continued so to do till she was married to Mr. William Williamson of Savannah, a gentleman of considerable note there ('tis much a gentleman of so considerable note as Mr. William Williamson would marry her!); that he sent her several letters and messages after her marriage, desiring her to meet him at divers unseasonable hours and places, many of which (hours or places) were at his, the said Wesley's, own closet. A report was, you say, that these things were so. Would any man desire better proof I am not surprised at all that upon such evidence you should advance such assertions. But I really am at what you afterwards assert as upon your own personal knowledge -- viz. that two Bills of Indictment being preferred against John Wesley and sent to the Grand Jury of Savannah (Bills of Indictment sent to a Grand Jury! What kind of proceeding is this), this deponent and the rest of the Grand Jury did UNANIMOUSLY agree to the said Bills. How dare you, sir, assert so gross a falsehood Have you no regard either for your reputation or your soul Do you think there is no God to judge the earth You know, you must know, how large a part of that Grand Jury did absolutely disagree to every Bill of the two presentments; and gave those reasons of their disagreement to the Trustees, which neither you nor any man has yet chose to answer.

To Captain Robert Williams Date: BRISTOL, October 17, 1742 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1742) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- I really did you wrong. I believed the letter said to come from your very humble servant had been of your own composing till I had read it half through. But, on a narrower observation, I soon took knowledge both of the style and turn of thought so peculiar to Mr. Thomas Christie, once Recorder of Savannah, but now I fear (as before) wandering about to seek a piece of bread. I would not tread upon a worm; therefore let him pass. My concern, sir, is with you. Not that I should take notice of such a composition; only some might think silence a proof of guilt. That Mr. Wesley's answer is so indirect and full of evasion as to be a justification rather than confutation of your charge; that his leaving any doubt as to your great and well-known improvements plainly shows his malice and insincerity; and that Mr. Christie has still farther mementoes to convince the world what a base and jesuitical man he is, -- these, being mere rhetorical flowers fit to embellish the discourse, need no particular reply. But the fact (says your friend) with regard to the indictments stands in a different light than he tells it, and, as to his relation of persons dissenting on the Grand Jury, must be a story of his own making. That is easily known. The original paper is lodged at the Trustees’ Office at Palace Yard. And Mr. Fallowfield, one of those dissenters, you know succeeded Mr. Causton when Mr. Christie and he were displaced from their offices.

3. I have delayed thus long because I loved you, and was therefore unwilling to grieve you in anything; and likewise because I was afraid of creating another obstacle to that union which (if I know my own heart in any degree) I desire above all things under heaven. But I dare no longer delay, lest my silence should be a snare to any others of the children of God, and lest you yourselves should be more confirmed in what I cannot reconcile to the law and the testimony. This would strengthen the bar which I long to remove; and were that once taken out of the way, I should rejoice to be a doorkeeper in the house of God, an hewer of wood or drawer of water among you. Surely I would follow you to the ends of the earth, or remain with you in the uttermost parts of the sea. 4. What unites my heart to you is the excellency (in many respects) of the doctrine taught among you: your laying the true foundation, ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself’; your declaring the free grace of God the cause, and faith the condition, of justification; your bearing witness to those great fruits of faith, ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost’; and that sure mark thereof, ‘He that is born of God doth not commit sin.’ 5. I magnify the grace of God which is in many among you, enabling you to love Him who hath first loved us; teaching you, in whatsoever state you are, therewith to be content; causing you to trample under-foot the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life; and, above all, giving you to love one another in a manner the world knoweth not of.

I grant it. I grant also, that justification sometimes means a state of acceptance with God. But all this does not in the least affect my assertion, that ‘that justification which is spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and by our Church in the Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Articles, is not our acquittal at the last day, but the present remission of our sins.’ You add, ‘You write in other places so variously about this matter, that I despair to find any consistency. Once you held “a degree of justifying faith short of the full assurance of faith, theabiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him;” and yet you afterwards “warned all not to think they were justified before they had a clear assurance, that God had forgiven their sins.” What difference there is between this clearassurance, and the former full assurance and clear perception, Iknow not.’ (Page 40.) Let us go on step by step, and you will know. ‘Once you held “adegree of justifying faith, short of the full assurance of faith, theabiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christabideth in him.”’ And so I hold still, and have done for some years. ‘And yet you afterwards warned all not to think they werejustified before they had a clear assurance that God had forgiventheir sins.’ I did so. ‘What difference there is between this clear assurance, and that full assurance and clear perception, I knownot.’ Sir, I will tell you. The one is an assurance that my sins areforgiven, clear at first, but soon clouded with doubt or fear. Theother is such a plerophory or full assurance that I am forgiven, andso clear a perception that Christ abideth in me, as utterly excludesall doubt and fear, and leaves them no place, no, not for an hour. So that the difference between them is as great as the differencebetween the light of the morning and that of the midday sun.

‘I was a little surprised, in going out of the room, at one who catched hold of me, and said abruptly, “I must speak with you, and will. I have sinned against light and against love.” (N. B. She was soon after, if not at that very time, a common prostitute.) “I have sinned beyond forgiveness. I have been cursing you in my heart, and blaspheming God, ever since I came here. I am damned: I know it: I feel it: I am in hell: I have hell in my heart.” I desired two or three who had confidence in God, to join in crying to him on her behalf. Immediately that horrible dread was taken away, and she began to see some dawnings of hope.’ (ii. 333.) ‘The attention of all was soon fixed on poor Lucretia Smith. One so violently and variously torn of the evil one did I never see before. Sometimes she laughed till almost strangled; and then broke out into cursing and blaspheming; then stamped, and struggled with incredible strength, so that four or five could scarce hold her; then cried out, ‘O eternity, eternity! O that I had no soul! O that I had never been born!” At last she faintly called on Christ to help her; and the violence of her pangs ceased.’ (ii. 347.) It should be remembered, that from that time to this, her conversation has been as becometh the gospel. ‘Thursday, December 25, I met with such a case as I do not remember either to have known or heard of before: Lucretia Smith (the same person), after many years’ mourning, (long before she heard of us,) was filled with peace and joy in believing. In the midst of this, without any discernible cause, such a cloud suddenly overwhelmed her, that she could not believe her sins were ever forgiven at all, nor that there was any such thing as forgiveness of sins. She could not believe that the Scriptures were true; that there was any heaven, or hell, or angel, or spirit, or any God. One more I have since found in the same state: But observe, neither of these continued therein; nor did I ever know one that did. So sure it is that all faith is the gift of God, which the moment he withdraws, the evil heart of unbelief will poison the whole soul.’ (ii. 410.)

To conclude this head: You roundly affirm, once for all, ‘The grossest corruptions have ever followed the spreading of this tenet. The greatest heats and animosities have been raised thereby. The wildest errors have been thus occasioned. And in proportion to its getting ground, it has never failed to perplex the weak, to harden the wicked, and to please the profane. Your Journal is a proof that these terrible consequences have of late prevailed, perhaps more than ever.’ (Page 51.) Suppose that Journal gives a true account of facts, (which you seem not to deny,) could you find there no other fruits of my preaching, than these terrible ones you here mention O who so blind, as he that will not see! [Matthew Henry on Jer. xx. See Swift's Polite Conversation, dial. 3.] 18. But that we may not still talk at large, let us bring this question into as narrow a compass as possible. Let us go no farther as to time, than seven years last past; as to place, than London and the parts adjoining; as to persons, than you and me, Thomas Church preaching one doctrine, John Wesley the other. Now then, let us consider with meekness and fear, what have been the consequences of each doctrine. You have preached justification by faith and works, at Battersea, and St. Ann's, Westminster; while I preached justification by faith alone, near Moorfields, and at Short's Gardens. I beseech you then to consider, in the secret of your heart, how many sinners have you converted to God By their fruits we shall know them. This is a plain rule. By this test let them be tried. How many outwardly and habitually wicked men have you brought to uniform habits of outward holiness It is an awful thought! Can you instance in a hundred in fifty in twenty in ten If not, take heed unto yourself and to your doctrine. It cannot be that both are right before God.

You relate what follows as a third ‘very extraordinary instance of enthusiasm:’ (Remarks, p. 65): ‘Tuesday, Feb. 17. I left London. In the afternoon, I reached Oxford; and leaving my horse there, (for he was tired, and the horse-road exceeding bad, and my business admitted of no delay,) set out on foot for Stanton-Harcourt. The night overtook me in about an hour, accompanied with heavy rain. Being wet and weary, and not well knowing my way, I could not help saying in my heart, (though ashamed of my want of resignation to God’s will,) “O that thou wouldest stay the bottles of heaven! or at least give me light, or an honest guide, or some help in the manner thou knowest.” Presently the rain ceased, the moon broke out, and a friendly man overtook me, who set me on his own horse, and walked by my side, till we came to Mr. Gambold’s door.’ (Journal, ii. 425-6.) Here you remark, ‘If you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing in it worthy of being related.’ It may be so; let it pass then as a trifle not worth relating: But still it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look on it as miraculous. I do not myself look upon it as such; but as a signal instance of God's particular providence over all those who call upon him.

12. You add, ‘I shall give but one account more, and this is what you give of yourself.’ (Remarks, p. 72.) The sum whereof is, ‘At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease.’ I did so. I assert the fact still. ‘Now, if these,’ you say, ‘are not miraculous cures, all this is rank enthusiasm.’ I will put your argument in form: -- He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not so is a rank enthusiast: But you believe those to be miraculous cures which are not so: Therefore, you are a rank enthusiast. Before I answer, I must know what you mean by miraculous. If you term everything so, which is not strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, then I deny the latter part of the minor proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove the effects in question are strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is nothing worth. You conclude this head with, ‘Can you work miracles All your present pretences to the Spirit, till they are proved by miracles, cannot be excused, or acquitted from enthusiasm.’ (Page 73.) My short answer is this: I pretend to the Spirit just so far as is essential to a state of salvation. And cannot I be acquitted from enthusiasm till I prove by miracles that I am in a state of salvation 13. We now draw to a period: ‘The consequences of Methodism,’ you say, that is, of our preaching this doctrine, ‘which have hitherto appeared, are bad enough to induce you to leave it. It has, in fact, introduced many disorders; enthusiasm, Antinomianism, Calvinism, a neglect and contempt of God’s ordinances, and almost all other duties.’ (Page 75.)

7. ‘Infallible testimony’ was your word, not mine: I never use it; I do not like it. But I did not object to your using that phrase, because I would not fight about words. If, then, the question be repeated, ‘In what sense is that attestation of the Spirit infallible’ any one has my free leave to answer, In no sense at all. And yet, though I allow that some may fancy they have it when in truth they have it not, I cannot allow that any fancy they have it not at the time when they really have. I know no instance of this. When they have this faith, they cannot possibly doubt of their having it; although it is very possible, when they have it not, they may doubt whether ever they had it or no. This [See A Short Account of the Death of Mrs. Hannah Richardson, by Charles Wesley, 1741; or Jackson's Charles Wesley, i. 275-6.] was Hannah Richardson's case; and it is more or less the case with many of the children of God. 8. That logical evidence that we are the children of God I do not either exclude or despise. But it is far different from the direct witness of the Spirit: of which, I believe, St. Paul speaks in his Epistle to the Romans; and which, I doubt not, is given to many thousand souls who never saw my face. But I spoke only of those I personally knew, concerning whom, indeed, I find my transcriber has made a violent mistake, writing 13,000 instead of 1,300: I might add, those whom I also have known by their writings. But I cannot lay so much stress on their evidence. I cannot have so full and certain a knowledge of a writer as of one I talk with face to face; and therefore I think the experiences of this kind are not to be compared with those of the other.

5. You next ‘take the pains to lay before the reader an instance or two of confusion, &c.’ The first I read thus: -- ‘While we were at the room, Mrs. Jones, sitting at home, took the Bible to read; but on a sudden threw it away, saying, “I am good enough; I will never read or pray more.” She was in the same mind when I came, often repeating, “I used to think I was full of sin and that I sinned in everything I did; but now I know better: I am a good Christian; I never did any harm in my life; I don’t desire to be any better than I am.” She spoke many things to the same effect, plainly showing that the spirit of pride and of lies had the full dominion over her. I asked, “Do you desire to be healed” She said, “I am whole.”“But do you desire to be saved” She replied, “I am saved; I ail nothing; I am happy.” ‘This is one of the fruits of the present salvation and sinless perfection taught by you among the weak and ignorant.’ (Page 11.) I should wonder if the scarecrow of Sinless Perfection was not brought in some way or other. But to the point: You here repeat a relation as from me, and that ‘in confirmation,’ you say, ‘of your own veracity,’ and yet leave out both the beginning of that relation, part of the middle, and the end of it. I begin thus: ‘Sun. 11. -- I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil’ (Journal, ii. 415). These words, of all others, should not have been left out, being a key to all that follows. In the middle of the relation, immediately after the words ‘I am happy,’ I add, ‘Yet it was easy to discern she was in the most violent agony both of body and mind; sweating exceedingly, notwithstanding the severe frost, and not continuing in the same posture a moment,’ -- a plain proof that this was no instance of presumption, nor a natural fruit of any teaching whatever.

It ends thus: ‘About a quarter before six the next morning, after lying quiet awhile, she broke out, “Peace be unto thee” (her husband); “peace be unto this house! The peace of God is come to my soul. I know that my Redeemer liveth.” And for several days her mouth was filled with His praise and her “talk was wholly of His wondrous works.”’ Had not these words been left out, neither could this have passed for an instance of despair. Though still I do not know but it might have stood for an instance of confusion, &c. I must not forget that this was cited at first as a proof of my enthusiasm; as an instance of a private revelation, ‘which,’ you say, ‘I seem to pay great credit to--representing the conjectures of a woman, whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophecy!’ (Remarks, p. 64). I answered: ‘Descant, sir, as you please on this enthusiasm; on the credit I paid to this private revelation; and my representing the conjectures of this brain-sick woman as owing to a miraculous power of the Spirit of prophecy: and when you have done, I will desire you to read the passage once more; where you will find my express words are, introducing this account: “Sun. 11. -- I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil.” Such was the credit I paid to this revelation! All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God is, the enabling her to strive against the power of the devil and at length restoring peace to her soul.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 7.] I was in hopes you had done with this instance. But I am disappointed; for in your second letter I read thus: -- ‘The instances of enthusiasm and presumption which your last Journal had furnished me with remain now to be reviewed. The first was of a private revelation, which you appeared to pay great credit to. You had represented everything the woman had spoke in her agony as coming to pass.’ (Second Letter, p. 130.) But I had not represented anything she spoke then, whether it came to pass or no, as coming from the Spirit of God, but from the devil.

You remark: (6) ‘He is very liable to err, not considering things coolly and carefully.’ I answered: ‘So indeed I am. I find it every day more and more. But I do not yet find that this is owing to my want of “considering things coolly and carefully.” Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take. Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants!’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, acct. III 5.] You reply, ‘Your private life I have nothing to do with’; and then enlarge on my ‘method of consulting Scripture’ and of using lots, of both which by-and-by. But meantime observe this does not affect the question; for I neither cast lots, nor use that method at all, till I have considered things with all the care I can. So that, be this right or wrong, it is no manner of proof that I do not ‘carefully consider every step I take.’ But how little did I profit by begging your excuse, suppose I had spoken a word unguardedly! O sir, you put me in mind of him who said, ‘I know not how to show mercy!’ You have need never to fight but when you are sure to conquer, seeing you are resolved neither to give nor take quarter. You remark: (7) ‘He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it--the direction of God’s Spirit.’ I answered: ‘I am very difficult to be convinced by dry blows or hard names, but not by reason or argument. At least, that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention; for I claim no other direction of God's Spirit than is common to all believers.’ You reply: (1) ‘I fear this will not be easily reconcilable to your past presences and behavior’ (page 124). I believe it will; in particular to what I speak of the light I received from God in that important affair (Journal, i. 327). But as to the directions in general of the Spirit of God, we very probably differ in this: you apprehend those directions to be extraordinary which I suppose to be common to all believers.

8. You remarked, ‘It will be difficult to persuade any sober person that there is anything supernatural in these disorders’ (Remarks, pp. 68-9). The remainder of that paragraph I abridged thus: You attempt to account for those fits, by ‘obstructions or irregularities of the blood and spirits; hysterical disorders; watchings, fastings, closeness of rooms, great crowds, violent heat’; and lastly by ‘terrors, perplexities, and doubts in weak and well meaning men; which’ you think, ‘in many of the cases before us, have quite overset their understandings’ (page 69). I answered, ‘As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go.’ (Let it be supposed to have some influence in some cases; perhaps fully to account for one in a thousand.) ‘But I require proof of the last way whereby you would account for these disorders.’ Why, ‘the instances,’ you say, ‘of religious madness have much increased since you began to disturb the world.’ I doubt the fact. You reply, ‘This no way disproves it’ (Second Letter, p. 137). Yes, it does, till you produce some proof. For a bare negation is the proper and sufficient answer to a bare affirmation. I add, ‘If these instances had increased daily, it is easy to account for them another way,’ as is done in the First Part of the Farther Appeal. [See Works, viii. 130-4.] You say, ‘Most have heard of or known several of the Methodists thus driven to distraction.’ I answered, ‘You may have heard of five hundred; but how many have you known Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them -- no, not one of them to this day, either man, woman, or child.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 10.] You reply, ‘This’ (the naming them) ‘would be very improper and unnecessary’ (Second Letter, p. 138). However, sir, it is extremely necessary that you should name them to me in private. I will then, if required, excuse you to the public; which till then I cannot do. The person I mentioned, whom you threw into much doubt and perplexity, then lived in the parish of St. Ann, Westminster. I related the case just as she related it to me. But she is able and ready to answer for herself.

3. But what if there were now to be wrought ever so many ‘real and undoubted miracles’ (I suppose you mean by ‘undoubted’ such as, being sufficiently attested, ought not to be doubted of.) Why, ‘this,’ you say, ‘would put the controversy on a short foot, and be an effectual proof of the truth of your presences.’ By no means. As common as this assertion is, there is none upon earth more false. Suppose a teacher were now on this very day to work ‘real and undoubted miracles’; this would extremely little ‘shorten the controversy’ between him and the greater part of his opposers: for all this would not force them to believe; but many would still stand just where they did before, seeing men may ‘harden their hearts’ against miracles as well as against arguments. So men have done from the beginning of the world, even against such signal, glorious miracles, against such interpositions of the power of God, as may not be again till the consummation of all things. Permit me to remind you only of a few instances, and to observe that the argument holds a fortiori; for who will ever be empowered of God again to work such miracles as these were Did Pharaoh look on all that Moses and Aaron wrought as an 'effectual proof of the truth of their presences' even when 'the Lord made the sea dry land and the waters were divided'; when 'the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall unto them on the right hand and on the left' (Exod. xiv. 21-2.) Nay, The wounded dragon raged in vain, And, fierce the utmost plague to brave, Madly he dared the parted main, And sunk beneath the o’erwhelming wave. [See Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, iv. 303.]

I would just remind you of only one instance more: ‘There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother’s womb, who never had walked. The same heard Paul speak; who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.’ Here was so undoubted a miracle that the people ‘lifted up their voices, saying, The gods are come down in the likeness of men.’ But how long were even these convinced of the truth of his presences Only till ‘there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium’; and then they stoned him (as they supposed) to death! (Acts xiv. 8-19.) So certain it is that no miracles whatever which were ever yet wrought in the world were effectual to prove the most glaring truth to those that hardened their hearts against it. 4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. ‘If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be’ convinced of what they desire not to believe, ‘though one rose from the dead.’ Without a miracle, without one rising from the dead, t T t Ta at pe, ‘if any man be willing to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God’; but if he is not willing to do His will, he will never want an excuse, a plausible reason, for rejecting it -- yea, though ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it. For, let ever so much ‘light come into the world,’ it will have no effect (such is the wise and just will of God) on those who ‘love darkness rather than light.’ It will not convince those who do not simply desire to do the will of their Father which is in heaven; those who mind earthly things-who, if they do not continue in any gross outward sin, yet love pleasure or ease, yet seek profit or power, preferment or reputation. Nothing will ever be an effectual proof to these of the holy and acceptable will of God, unless first their proud hearts be humbled, their stubborn wills bowed down, and their desires brought, at least in some degree, into obedience to the law of Christ.

7. Let us consider this point yet a little farther. ‘What is it you would have us prove by miracles The doctrines we preach’ We prove these by Scripture and reason, and (if need be) by antiquity. What else is it, then, that we are to prove by miracles At length we have a distinct reply: ‘Wise and sober men will not otherwise be convinced’ (that is, unless you prove this by miracles) ‘that God is, by the means of such teachers and such doctrines, working a great and extraordinary work in the earth’ (Preface, p. 6). So, then, the determinate point which you in their name call upon us to prove by miracles is this, ‘that God is by these teachers working a great and extraordinary work in the earth.’ What I mean by ‘a great and extraordinary work’ is, the bringing multitudes of gross notorious sinners in a short space to the fear and love and service of God, to an entire change of heart and life. Now, then, let us take a nearer view of the proposition, and see which part of it we are to prove by miracles. ‘Is it (1) that A. B. was for many years without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, a Sabbath-breaker ‘Or (2) that he is not so now ‘Or (3) that he continued so till he heard these men preach, and from that time was another man ‘Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is by the testimony of competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. ‘Or would you have us prove by miracles (4) that this was not done by our own power or holiness that God only is able to raise the dead, to quicken those who are dead in trespasses and sins' Surely no. Whosoever believes the Scriptures will want no new proof of this. Where, then, is the wisdom of those men who demand miracles in proof of such a proposition one branch of which, ‘that such sinners were reformed by the means of these teachers,’ being a plain fact, can only be proved by testimony, as all other facts are; and the other, ‘that this is a work of God, and a great and more than ordinary work,’ needs no proof, as carrying its own evidence to every thinking man.

Inquire, then, ‘Which are greater, the numbers of serious men perplexed and deluded by these teachers, or of notorious sinners brought to repentance and good life,’ within the forest of Kingswood Many, indeed, of the inhabitants are nearly as they were, are not much better or worse for their preaching, because the neighboring clergy and gentry have successfully labored to deter them from hearing it. But between three and four hundred of those who would not be deterred are now under the care of those preachers. Now, what number of these were serious Christians before Were fifty were twenty were ten Peradventure there might five such be found. But it is a question whether there could be or no. The remainder were gross, open sinners, common swearers, drunkards, Sabbath-breakers, whoremongers, plunderers, robbers, implacable, unmerciful, wolves and bears in the shape of men. Do you desire instances of more ‘notorious sinners’ than these I know not if Turkey or Japan can afford them. And what do you include in ‘repentance and good life’ Give the strictest definition thereof that you are able, and I will undertake these once notorious sinners shall be weighed in that balance and not found wanting. 8. Not that all the Methodists (so called) ‘were very wicked people before they followed us.’ There are those among them, and not a few, who are able to stop the boasting of those that despise them, and to say, ‘Whereinsoever any of you is bold, I am bold also’; only they ‘count all these things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus.’ But these we found, as it were, when we sought them not. We went forth to ‘seek that which was lost’ (more eminently lost); ‘to call’ the most flagrant, hardened, desperate ‘sinners to repentance.’ To this end we preached in the Horsefair at Bristol, in Kingswood, in Newcastle; among the colliers in Staffordshire and the tinners in Cornwall; in Southwark, Wapping, Moorfields, Drury Lane, at London. Did any man ever pick out such places as these in order to find ‘serious, regular, well-disposed people’ How many such might then be in any of them I know not. But this I know, that four in five of those who are now with us were not of that number, but were wallowing in their blood, till God by us said unto them, ‘Live.’

9. One point of doctrine remains: ‘Is there any such thing as perceptible inspiration or not’ I asserted, ‘There is’; but at the same time subjoined, ‘Be pleased to observe what we mean thereby: we mean that inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit whereby He fills us (every true believer) with righteousness and peace and joy, with love to Him and all mankind. And we believe it cannot be in the nature of things that a man should be filled with this peace and joy and love by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost without perceiving it as clearly as he does the light of the sun.’ You reply, ‘You have now entirely shifted the question.’ I think not. You objected that I had perceptible inspiration. I answered, ‘I do’: but observe in what sense; otherwise I must recall my concession. I hold God inspires every Christian with peace, joy, and love, which are all perceptible. You reply, ‘The question is not whether the fruits of inspiration are perceptible, but whether the work of inspiration itself be so.’ This was not my question; nor did I till now understand that it was yours. If I had, I should have returned a different answer, as I have elsewhere done already. When one warmly objected near two years ago, ‘All reasonable Christians believe that the Holy Spirit works His graces in us in an imperceptible manner,’ my answer was, ‘You are here disproving, as you suppose, a proposition of mine. But are you sure you understand it By the operations (inspirations or workings) of the Spirit, I do not mean the manner in which He operates, but the graces which He operates (inspires or works) in a Christian.’ If you ask, But do not you hold 'that Christian faith implies a direct, perceptible testimony of the Spirit, as distinguishable from the suggestion of fancy as light is distinguishable from darkness; whereas we suppose He imperceptibly influences our minds' I answer, I do hold this. I suppose that every Christian believer, over and above that imperceptible influence, hath a direct perceptible testimony of the Spirit that he is a child of God.

To John Bennet Date: LONDON, December 20, 1746. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1746) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Is what you mention concerning poor David Taylor a certain truth Do you speak on sure grounds Or is it only a flying report It is exceeding strange, if it is true. If it was true, did not his late teachers know it And if they did know it, could they be honest men Surely it would be worth while to talk with him once. It may help him, and not hurt you. Methinks you should see poor Mr. Hutchings also once. I scarce know how to believe that he is so weak. Although, when a believer has once let go his hold, he may sink into anything. You should also talk with as many of the scattered sheep as you can. Some of them, perhaps, may yet return into the way of truth. I shall write to my brother by this post, and mention his coming through Cheshire, if possible. It will be best for you to write to him immediately to Newcastle, and fix a day for meeting him at Birstall or Sheffield.[Charles Wesley was in Newcastle, and reached Sheffield on Feb. 1, 1747.] You should write to me as often as you can. T. Westall [Thomas Westall was one of Wesley’s first lay preachers. ‘He was a pattern of simplicity and humble love.’ He resided at Bristol, where he died in 1794. see Atmore's Memorial, pp. 486-7.]will take advice in all things. Be strong, and God shall comfort your heart. But you must not be always at one place. Grace be with you. Farewell. TO Mr. John Bennet, Chinley End, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire.

To Howell Harris Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1747) Author: John Wesley --- NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, March 3, 1747. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I was glad to receive a letter from you, though sorry for some of the contents of it. I believed Brother Cownley would labor for peace and simply preach the gospel. I wrote pressingly to Brother Richards (who, I suppose, was at Plymouth since, in his return from Cornwall) to tread in the same steps. By degrees I trust these unkind affections will subside and brotherly love revive and increase. My brother said (this I know) ‘he had no more design to have a Society at Plymouth than a palace’; and he had not neither then nor when he desired John Trembath to call there. Nor, indeed, does he now concern himself therewith. The burthen lies upon me, and I am in a strait between two. I am much solicited to suffer those who press for it to be under my care. But what to do I know not. May God make plain my way before my face. From the day I saw him first, I never found the least shadow of double dealing in James Wheatley. I scarce know his fellow upon earth for simplicity and godly sincerity. His preaching in the street I cannot blame; but I should not have advised him to do it at that hour. I will take particular care that those who may hereafter call at Plymouth be of a mild and peaceable spirit. Those who are warm I will desire to go into Cornwall and return another way. I had fully determined to have gone or sent to Portsmouth; but on hearing Brother Jenkins had been there already, I gave up the design. Remember me, my dear brother, in all your prayers, who am Your affectionate brother and fellow laborer.

This I mentioned in my last. But it is certain, over and above those other graces which the Holy Spirit inspires into or operates in a Christian, and over and above His imperceptible influences, I do intend all mankind should understand me to assert (what I therefore express in the clearest language I am master of) every Christian believer hath a perceptible testimony of the Spirit that he is a child of God. I use the phrase ‘testimony of the Spirit’ rather than ‘inspiration,’ because it has a more determinate meaning. And I desire men to know what I mean, and what I do not; that I may not fight as one that beateth the air. 7. Is there ‘not one word said of this, either in the Farther Appeal or in any one place in the Bible’ I think there is in the Bible, in the 16th verse of the 8th chapter to the Romans. And is not this very place proved to describe the ordinary privilege of every Christian believer in the Farther Appeal, from the forty-fifth to the forty-ninth and from the fifty-sixth to the fifty-ninth page [Part I. See Works, viii. 83-7, 93-5]

Give me leave to remind you of some of the words. In the forty-ninth page the argument concludes thus: ‘It will follow that this witness of the Spirit is the private testimony given to our own consciences, which consequently all sober Christians may claim, without any danger of enthusiasm.’ In the fifty-seventh page are these words: ‘Every one that is born of God, and doth not commit sin, by his very actions saith, “Our Father which art in heaven”; the Spirit itself bearing witness with their spirit that they are the children of God. According to Origen, therefore, this testimony of the Spirit is not any public testimony by miracles, but an inward testimony belonging in common to all that are born of God.’ Once more: in the fifty-eighth page are these words: ‘He brings yet another proof of the superiority of those who had this Spirit of adoption: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” “I prove this,” says he, “not only from the voice itself, but also from the cause whence that voice proceeds. For the Spirit suggests the words while we thus speak, which he hath elsewhere expressed more plainly, ‘God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father!’ But what is ‘The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit’” He means the Paraclete by the gift given unto us.’ (But that this was an extraordinary gift we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after.) ‘And when the Spirit beareth witness, what doubt is left If a man or an angel spake, some might doubt; but when the Most High beareth witness to us, who can doubt any longer’ I am mistaken if this does not come home to the point, to the question now before us: describing a perceptible testimony of the Holy Ghost, ‘directly felt to be worked by Himself.’

8. But I will waive all authorities, that of Origen and Chrysostom, as well as of Hannah Richardson (though not a weak woman, but eminently the reverse) and Averel Spenser [See letters of Dec. 30, 1745, sects. 4, 7, and March 22, 1748, sect. 14.](though not a wicked one), only observing that your argument proves too much. I am as fully assured to-day, as I am of the shining of the sun, that the Scriptures are of God. I cannot possibly deny or doubt of it now: yet I may doubt of it to-morrow; as I have done heretofore a thousand times, and that after the fullest assurance preceding. Now, if this be 'a demonstration that my former assurance was a mere fancy,' then farewell all revelation at once!

But to come closer yet, and weigh the point in debate in the balance of plain reason. You must allow there is a testimony of the Spirit with our spirit that we are the children of God. ‘But,’ you say, ‘it is not a perceptible one.’ How is this Let us examine it thoroughly. It is allowed (1) the Spirit of God (2) bears testimony to my spirit (3) that I am a child of God. But I am not to perceive it. Not to perceive what the first, second, or third particular Am I not to perceive what is testified -- that I am a child of God Then it is not testified at all. This is saying and unlaying in the same breath. Or am I not to perceive that it is testified to my spirit Yea, but I must perceive what passes in my own soul! Or, lastly, am I to perceive that I am a child of God, and that this is testified to my spirit, but not to perceive who it is that testifies not to know it is the Spirit of God O sir, if there really be a man in the world who hath this testimony in himself, can it be supposed that he does not know who it is that testifies who it is that speaks to his heart that speaks in his inmost soul as never man spake If he does not, he is ignorant of the whole affair. If you are in this state, I pray God you may say from the heart, ‘Lord, what I know not, teach Thou me.’ How much better were this than to canonize your own ignorance as the only knowledge and wisdom, and to condemn all the generation of God's children of ‘idiotism and madness’! 9. Under your last head you do not confine yourself now within the bounds you at first proposed, when you said, ‘I am not making conjectures of what may happen, but relating mischiefs which actually have happened.’ Take care you do not grow warm when I reply to this; you will have need of all your patience to bear it.

You ascribe it likewise in part to ‘a natural knack of persuasion.’ If either by a natural or an acquired power of persuasion I can prevail upon sinners to turn to God, am I to bury even that talent in the earth ‘No; but try if you cannot do more good in a college or in a parish.’ [See letter of March 20, 1739, to James Hervey.] I have tried both, and I could not do any substantial good, either to my pupils or my parishioners. Among my parishioners in Lincolnshire I tried for some years; but I am well assured I did far more good to them by preaching three days on my father's tomb than I did by preaching three years in his pulpit. But you ‘know no call I have to preach up and down, to play the part of an itinerant evangelist.’ Perhaps you do not. But I do: I know God hath required this at my hands. To me, His blessing my work is an abundant proof; although such a proof as often makes me tremble. But ‘is there not pride or vanity in my heart’ There is; yet this is not my motive to preaching. I know and feel that the spring of this is a deep conviction that it is the will of God, and that, were I to refrain, I should never hear that word, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,’ but, ‘Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness, where is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.’

7. I am not one jot more concerned in instantaneous justification as your Lordship explains it -- namely, ‘A sudden, instantaneous justification, by which the person receives from God a certain seal of His salvation or an absolute assurance of being saved at last’ (Charge, p. 11). ‘Such an instantaneous working of the Holy Spirit as finishes the business of salvation once for all’ (ibid.). I neither teach nor believe it, and am therefore clear of all the consequences that may arise therefrom. I believe ‘a gradual improvement in grace and goodness,’I mean in the knowledge and love of God, is a good ‘testimony of our present sincerity towards God’; although I dare not say it is ‘the only true ground of humble assurance,’ or the only foundation on which a Christian builds his ‘hopes of acceptance and salvation.’ For I think ‘other foundation’ of these ‘can no man lay than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ.’ 8. To the charge of holding ‘sinless perfection,’ as your Lordship states it, I might likewise plead, Not guilty; seeing one ingredient thereof in your Lordship’s account is ‘freedom from temptation’ (page 17). Whereas I believe ‘there is no such perfection in this life as implies an entire deliverance from manifold temptations.’ But I will not decline the charge. I will repeat once more my coolest thoughts upon this head; and that in the very terms which I did several years ago, as I presume your Lordship cannot be ignorant: --

By ‘extraordinary strictnesses and severities,’ I presume your Lordship means the abstaining from wine and animal food; which, it is sure, Christianity does not require. But if you do, I fear your Lordship is not thoroughly informed of the matter of fact. I began to do this about twelve years ago, when I had no thought of ‘annoying parochial ministers,’ or of ‘captivating’ any ‘people’ thereby, unless it were the Chicasaw or Choctaw Indians. But I resumed the use of them both, about two years after, for the sake of some who thought I made it a point of conscience; telling them, ‘I will eat flesh while the world standeth’ rather than ‘make my brother to offend.’ Dr. Cheyne advised me to leave them off again, assuring me, ‘Till you do, you will never be free from fevers.’ And since I have taken his advice, I have been free (blessed be God) from all bodily disorders. [I continued this about two years (Wesley). See Tyerman’s Wesley, i.28-9; and letter of Nov. 1, 1724.] Would to God I knew any method of being equally free from all ‘follies and indiscretions’! But this I never expect to attain till my spirit returns to God. 15. But in how strange a manner does your Lordship represent this! What a construction do you put upon it! ‘Appearances of an uncommon sanctity, in order to captivate the people. Pretensions to more exalted degrees of strictness, to make their way into weak minds and fickle heads.’ (Page 25.) ‘Pretences to greater sanctity, whereby they draw over to themselves the most ignorant of the people’ (page 4). If these are ‘appearances of uncommon sanctity' (which, indeed, might bear a dispute), how does your Lordship know that they are only appearances that they do not spring from the heart Suppose these were 'exalted degrees of strictness,’ is your Lordship absolutely assured that we practice them only ‘to make our way into weak minds and fickle heads' Where is the proof that these 'presences to greater sanctity’ (as your Lordship is pleased to phrase them) are mere presences, and have nothing of reality or sincerity in them

This is there shown, both by Scripture, by reason, and by authority, particularly that of Origen and Chrysostom, whom his Lordship of Lichfield had cited in his Charge [Richard Smallbroke, Bishop of Lichfield 1730-49, published treatises against Whiston and Woolaston. In a Charge, delivered in 1741 and published in 1744, he set himself ‘to obviate the Contagion of those Enthusiastical Pretensions that in several parts of the nation have lately, as well as formerly, betrayed whole Multitudes either into an unreasonable Presumption of their Salvation, or into melancholy if not desponding Opinions about it.’ He attempted to prove, with the aid of Origen and Chrysostom’s homily on I Cor. ii. 4, that the ‘demonstration of the Spirit and power’ referred to the miracles of the apostolic age (pp. 15, 26, 31-2), and that the Testimony of the Spirit, in the Sense of the Holy Scriptures, is abusively pretended to by a new sect of Enthusiastical Seducers among us.’ Whitefield wrote Some Remarks upon a late Charge against Enthusiasm, and Wesley answered the Bishop in A Farther Appeal.] as asserting just the contrary. But, waiving authorities, I reasoned thus: ‘You allow there is a testimony of the Spirit with our spirit that we are the children of God. But you say it is not a perceptible one. How is this Let us examine it thoroughly. It is allowed (1) the Spirit of God (2) bears testimony to my spirit (3) that I am a child of God. But I am not to perceive it. Not to perceive what the first, second, or third particular Am I not to perceive what is testified -- that I am a child of God Then it is not testified at all. This is saying and unlaying in the same breath. Or am I not to perceive that it is testified to my spirit Yea, but I must perceive what passes in my own soul! Or, lastly, am I to perceive that I am a child of God, and that this is testified to my spirit, but not to perceive who it is that testifies not to know it is the Spirit of God O sir, if there be really a man in the world who hath this testimony in himself, can it be supposed that he does not know who it is that testifies who it is that speaks to his heart’

7. Instead of giving a direct answer to this, you have recourse to the same supposition with his Lordship of Lichfield and Coventry -- namely, that there was once an inward, perceptible testimony of the Spirit, but that it was peculiar to the early ages of the Church. ‘There are three ways,’ say you, ‘in which the Holy Spirit may be said to bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God: (1) By external, miraculous attestations. (2) By internal, plainly perceptible whispers.’ (I must add, ‘not in words, at least not always, but by some kind of impressions equivalent thereto.’) ‘(3) By His standing testimony in the Holy Scriptures. The Apostles had all these three; Origen and Chrysostom probably the two latter. But if St. Bernard, several hundred years after, pretended to any other than the third, his neighbors would naturally ask for proof, either that it should be so by Scripture or that it was so by facts.’

Well, then, let us suppose St. Bernard and one of his neighbors to be talking together on this subject. On St. Bernard's saying, ‘The Spirit of God bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God,’ his neighbor replies, ‘I suppose He does, but not by an inward, plainly perceptible testimony.’ ‘Yes, by an inward, plainly perceptible testimony. I now have this testimony in myself; I plainly perceive that I am a child of God, and that it is His Spirit who testifies it to my spirit.’ ‘I fear you are somewhat enthusiastically given. I allow God’s standing testimony in the Scriptures; but I cannot allow that there is now any such thing as this inward testimony, unless you can either prove by Scripture that it should be so or by facts that it is so.’ ‘Are not these words Scripture: “The Spirit itself beareth testimony with our spirit that we are the children of God”’ ‘Yes; but the question is, how they are to be understood: for I deny that they speak of an inward testimony. They speak of the outward, standing testimony of God in the Holy Scriptures.’ ‘You put a manifest force upon the text. You cannot prove that it speaks of any outward testimony at all. But the words immediately preceding prove to a demonstration that it speaks of an inward testimony: “Ye have not received the spirit of bondage unto fear” (is not fear an inward thing); “but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!” The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God, even the same Spirit which “God hath sent forth into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father I”’ ‘I do not deny that the Spirit bears witness with our spirit. But I deny your peculiar interpretation of this text. I deny that this text at all favors an inward, perceptible testimony.’ ‘The Spirit which God hath sent into my heart, and which now cries in my heart “Abba, Father,” now beareth testimony with my spirit that I am a child of God. How can these words be interpreted at all but of an inward, perceptible testimony’ ‘I tell you, of God's standing testimony in Scripture.’ ‘This is a palpable violence to the words. They no more speak of Scripture than of miracles.

They no more speak of Scripture than of miracles. They manifestly speak of what passes in the heart, the spirit, the inmost soul of a believer, and that only.’ 8. But you would say, ‘Suppose this scripture to prove that it should be so, can you show by facts that it is so’ Not if you take it for granted that every one who speaks of having this witness in himself is an enthusiast. You are then in no danger of proof from this quarter. You have a short answer to every fact which can be alleged. But you turn the tables. You say it is I who allow that ‘many of God's children do not continue in sound mind and memory.’ I allowed: (1) A man feels the testimony of God's Spirit, and cannot then deny or doubt his being a child of God. (2) After a time this testimony is withdrawn: not from every child of God; many retain the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end. (3) Then he may doubt whether that testimony was of God, and perhaps at length deny that it was, especially if his heart be hardened by the deceitfulness of his sin. And yet he may be all this time in every other respect of ‘sound memory as well as understanding.’ In this respect I allowed he is not -- that is, ‘his understanding is now darkened, and the very traces of that divine work wellnigh erased out of his memory.’ So I expressly determined the sense wherein I allowed ‘he does not continue in sound mind and memory.’ But did I allow that even then he was non compos mentis -- a madman in the common sense Nothing less: I allowed no more than, the divine light being withdrawn, his mind was again dark as to the things of God; and that he had forgotten t aTas t pa at ‘aat, [2 Pet. i. 9 ‘The purification from his former sins.’] wellnigh as if it had never been.

10. You add: ‘If we reply, There are enthusiasts in the world, you can keep your temper no longer; and the only answer is, If we perceive not that witness in ourselves, we are ignorant of the whole affair, and doomed to the “everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”’ I said not so. I can keep my temper (blessed be God) if you call me an hundred enthusiasts, if you affirm I am ten times more of an enthusiast than that poor Quaker probably was. [‘Smith’ referred to a Quaker which he was fully persuaded was who had brought him a message received from God.] The sharpest word I said was, ‘If a man does not know who it is that testifies with his spirit he is a child of God, he is ignorant of the whole affair.’ But I felt no anger when I said this. Nor do I now. Though I still think (because you say it yourself) that you are ignorant of this whole affair, of the inward testimony for which I contend. Yet am I far from dooming you to everlasting fire. What you know not, I trust God will reveal unto you. Least of all was this my ‘only answer to your supposition 'that this perceptible testimony is only an imagination, unless I am altogether in a dream.’ I have given some other answer, and a pretty full one, to the objection -- such an one, I think, as the nature of the thing admits, at least as my capacity would allow.

11. I have largely considered, both in the Third Part of the Appeal and in the latter part of the Second Letter to Mr. Church, the unreasonableness of the common demand to prove our doctrine by miracles. I cannot but refer you to those tracts, having neither time nor inclination actum agere. [‘To do the same thing repeatedly.’] Only I would weigh what you have now advanced in support of that demand. ‘If the enthusiast is as confident of his inspiration as one really inspired is of his, a third person has a right to call for other proof than confident assertions’ -- that is, for miracles. So you explain yourself in the following sentence. Let us try how this consequence will hold in a particular instance: ‘The Spirit said unto Paul, Go not into Macedonia.’ When he related this to his companions, ought they to have replied, ‘We call for other proof of this than your confident assertion, seeing enthusiasts are as confident of theirs as you are of this revelation’ If you say, ‘They had seen his miracles at other times’; I know not that: perhaps they had, perhaps they had not. But to step a little forward: ‘If in the days of Origen and Chrysostom external miraculous powers were ceased, while internal inspiration still remained,’ what becomes of your demand here It is totally excluded; although there were, in those days also, pretenders to what they had not. And yet there might have been other sufficient reasons for believing the assertion of Origen, Chrysostom, and St. Bernard too, that they had this internal testimony. Such was, besides the holiness of their lives, that great and standing miracle -- their saving so many souls from death and hiding a multitude of sins. 12. There are at least as many pretenders to the love of God as there are to the witness of His Spirit. But does this give me a right, if a man asserts he loves God, to demand his proving that assertion by miracles Not so; but by their fruits I shall know a real and a pretended love of God. And in the same manner may I know him that has the witness of God's love from an enthusiastic pretender to it. But if a man disclaims it, he sets himself out of the question. It is beyond dispute that he has it not.

IV. If you object, (1) ‘Job, Thomas, St. Paul, &c., had this sense,’ I grant they had; but they were justified before they had it. (2) ‘We know fifteen hundred persons who have this assurance.’ Perhaps so; but this does not prove that they were not justified till they received it. (3) 'We have been exceedingly blessed in preaching this doctrine.' We have been blessed in preaching the great truths of the gospel; although we tacked to them, in the simplicity of our hearts, a proposition which was not true. (4) ‘But does not our Church give this account of justifying faith’ I am sure she does of saving or Christian faith; I think she does of justifying faith too. But to the law and testimony. All men may err; but the word of the Lord shall stand for ever.

And now you know not that you have done anything amiss! You can eat and drink and be merry. You are every day engaged with variety of company and frequent the coffeehouses! Alas, my brother, what is this How are you above measure hardened by the deceitfulness of sin! Do you remember the story of Santon Barsisa [The history of Santon Barsisa, taken by Steele out of the Turkish Tales, forms No. 148 of the Guardian, Aug. 31, 1718.] I pray God your last end may not be like his! Oh how have you grieved the Spirit of God! Return to Him with weeping, fasting, and mourning. You are in the very belly of hell; only the pit hath not yet shut its mouth upon you. Arise, thou sleeper, and call upon thy God! Perhaps He may yet be found. Because He still bears with me, I cannot despair for you. But you have not a moment to lose. May God this instant strike you to the heart, that you may feel His wrath abiding on you, and have no rest in your bones, by reason of your sin, till all your iniquities are done away!

To Thomas Whitehead () Date: BRISTOL, February 10, 1748. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1748) Author: John Wesley --- You ask me, 'Is there any difference between Quakerism and Christianity 'I think there is. What that difference is I will tell you as plainly as I can. I will first set down the account of Quakerism (so called) which is given by Robert Barclay; and then add wherein it agrees with, and wherein it differs from, Christianity. 1. 'Seeing the height of all happiness is placed in the true knowledge of God, the right understanding of this is what is most necessary to be known in the first place.' 2. 'It is by the Spirit alone that the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be revealed. And these revelations, which are absolutely necessary for the building up of true faith, neither do, nor can, ever contradict right reason or the testimony of the Scriptures.' Thus far there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. ' Yet these revelations are not to be subjected to the examination of the Scriptures as to a touchstone.' Here there is a difference. The Scriptures are the touchstone whereby Christians examine all, real or supposed, revelations. In all cases they appeal 'to the law and to the testimony,' and try every spirit thereby. 3. 'From these revelations of the Spirit of God to the saints have proceeded the Scriptures of truth.' In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. ' Yet the Scriptures are not the principal ground of all truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners. Nevertheless they are a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit. By Him the saints are led into all truth. Therefore the Spirit is the first and principal leader.' If by these words--' The Scriptures are not the principal ground of truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners '--be only meant that 'the Spirit is our first and principal leader,' here is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity.

It is true, indeed, that 'all true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of His own Spirit'; or (to speak plain), that we cannot truly worship God, unless His Spirit move or incline our hearts. It is equally true that 'we ought to pray and preach only where and when we are moved thereto by His Spirit.' But I fear you do not in any wise understand what the being 'moved by His Spirit' means. God moves man, whom He has made a reasonable creature, according to the reason which He has given him. He moves him by his understanding as well as his affections, by light as well as by heat. He moves him to do this or that by conviction full as often as by desire. Accordingly you are as really 'moved by the Spirit' when He convinces you you ought to feed him that is hungry, as when He gives you ever so strong an impulse, desire, or inclination so to do. In like manner, you are as really moved by the Spirit to pray, whether it be in public or private, when you have a conviction it is the will of God you should, as when you have the strongest impulse upon your heart. And He does truly move you to preach, when in His light you 'see light' clearly satisfying you it is His will, as much as when you feel the most vehement impulse or desire to 'hold forth the words of eternal life.' Now let us consider the main proposition: 'All worship which man sets about in his own will and at his own appointment' Hold! That is quite another thing. It may be at his own appointment, and yet not in his own will; for instance: It is not my own will to preach at all. It is quite contrary to my will. Many a time have I cried out, 'Lord, send by whom Thou wilt send; only send not me I' But I am moved by the Spirit of God to preach: He clearly shows me it is His will I should; and that I should do it when and where the greatest number of poor sinners may be gathered together. Moved by Him, I give up my will, and appoint a time and place, when by His power I trust to speak in His name.

How widely different, then, from true Christianity is that amazing sentence, 'All praises, prayers, and preachings which man can begin and end at his pleasure, do or leave undone, as himself sees meet, are superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatry in the sight of God '! There is not one tittle of Scripture for this; nor yet is there any sound reason. When you take it for granted, 'In all preachings which a man begins or ends at his pleasure, does or leaves undone as he sees meet, he is not moved by the Spirit of God,' you are too hasty a great deal. It may be by the Spirit that he sees meet to do or leave it undone. How will you prove that it is not His pleasure may depend on the pleasure of God, signified to him by His Spirit. His appointing this or that time or place does in no wise prove the contrary. Prove me that proposition, if you can: 'Every man who preaches or prays at an appointed time, preaches or prays in his own will, and not by the Spirit.' That 'all such preaching is will-worship, in the sense St. Paul uses the word,' is no more true than that it is murder. That it is superstition remains also to be proved. That it is abominable idolatry, how will you reconcile with what follows but a few lines after--'However it might please God, who winked at the times of ignorance, to raise some breathings and answer them.' What! answer the breathings of abominable idolatry! I observe how warily this is worded; but it allows enough. If God ever raised and answered those prayers which were made at set times, then those prayers could not be abominable idolatry. Again: that prayers and preachings, though made at appointed times, may yet proceed from the Spirit of God, may be clearly proved from those other words of Robert Barclay himself, page 389: 'That preaching or prayer which is not done by the actings and movings of God's Spirit cannot beget faith.' Most true. But preaching and prayer at appointed times have begotten faith both at Bristol and Paulton. You know it well. Therefore that preaching and prayer, though at appointed times, was 'done by the actings and movings of God's Spirit.'

To Howell Harris Date: HOLYHEAD, February 28, 1748. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1748) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--I presume you know how bitter Mr. Ellis (the minister here) used to be against the Methodists. On Friday he came to hear me preach, I believe with no friendly intention. Brother Swindells[Robert Swindells, a man of great zeal and fine spirit, was one of Wesley's devoted preachers for more than forty years. He did much for the poor, and sometimes gave even part of his own clothes to relieve distress. He suffered much, and died suddenly in 1782. See Atmore's Memorial, p. 409; and letter of Feb. 14, 1778, to Mrs. Johnson.] spoke a few words to him, whereupon he invited him to his house. Since then they have spent several hours together, and I believe his views of things are greatly changed. He commends you much for bringing the Methodists back to the Church; and at his request I have wrote a little thing to the same effect. He will translate it into Welsh, and then I design to print it both in Welsh and English: I will send you some as soon as I can, that you may disperse them when you see occasion. I thought it good to apprise you of this before. I know your heart is herein as my heart. O my brother, let us join hand in hand and fight our way through I I want all your prayers. I believe God has detained us here for the sake both of the minister and the people. Grace and peace be with you and yours.--I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate friend and brother.

6. My father did not die unacquainted with the faith of the gospel, of the primitive Christians, or of our first Reformers; the same which, by the grace of God, I preach, and which is just as new as Christianity. What he experienced before, I know not; but I know that during his last illness, which continued eight months, he enjoyed a clear sense of his acceptance with God. I heard him express it more than once, although at that time I understood him not. 'The inward witness, son, the inward witness,' said he to me, 'that is the proof, the strongest proof, of Christianity.' And when I asked him (the time of his change drawing nigh), 'Sir, are you in much pain' he answered aloud, with a smile, 'God does chasten me with pain--yea, all my bones with strong pain; but I thank Him for all, I bless Him for all, I love Him for all!' I think the last words he spoke, when I had just commended his soul to God, were, 'Now you have done all.' And, with the same serene, cheerful countenance, he fell asleep, without one struggle or sigh or groan. I cannot therefore doubt but the Spirit of God bore an inward witness with his spirit that he was a child of God.[See Charles Wesley's letter to Samuel, April 30, 1735, in Priestley's Letters, pp. 51-3.] 7. That 'God blesses a doctrine preached (new or old) to the saving of souls from death does not prove that every circumstance of it is true; for a Predestinarian preacher may save souls.' But it undoubtedly proves that the main of what is preached is the truth as it is in Jesus; for it is only the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power of God unto salvation. Human wisdom, as human laws, may restrain from outward sin; but they cannot avail to the saving of the soul. If God gives this blessing to what is preached, it is a sufficient 'proof of His approbation.' But I will not contend about words, or, when His blessing is allowed, dispute whether it has His approbation or not.

12. If a single parish takes up your whole time and care, and you spend and are spent upon it, well. And yet I will be bold to say that no blessing from God will accompany your ministry, but the drunkard will be a drunkard still (and so the covetous, the brawler, the adulterer), unless you both believe and teach what you love to call my 'new notions of inspiration'; I mean as to the substance, not the particular manner of explication. You will all the day long stretch out your hands in vain, unless you teach them to pray that the Spirit of God may inwardly witness with their spirits that they are the children of God. I apprehend you are the person that 'wriggle on this head,' because the argument pinches: you appear to me to twist and wind to and fro, because I 'distinguish away,' not my doctrines, but your objections--unravelling the fallacies, showing what part is false, and what part true, but nothing to the purpose. Since you move it again, I will resume the point once more. You will pardon me if I speak home, that it may be seen which of us two it is that has hitherto given the 'evasive answers.' 13. You say, 'Notwithstanding all your pains to distort that text, for anything which has yet been said to the contrary, it may be understood of the Spirit's witness by miracles, by prophecy, or by the imperceptibly wrought assurances of the Holy Ghost.' This (unless it gives up the whole cause; as indeed it must if it does not imply a contradiction, seeing imperceptible assurance is no assurance at all) is neither an evasive nor an unevasive answer. It is just no answer at all. Instead of refuting my arguments, you reply, 'You distort the text. Ipse dixi.' 'The Quakers maintain divine illapses and sensible communications always; you only sometimes.' If you speak to the purpose, if you mean the inward witness of God's Spirit, I maintain it always as well as they. 'The Methodist writings abound with intimations of divine communications, prophetic whispers, and special guidances.' Perhaps so; but that is another question. We are now speaking of the inward witness of the Spirit.

14. 'They teach the notification of justification to be as perceptible as the sun at noonday.' Now you come to the point, and I allow the charge. From the beginning of our correspondence to this day I have, without any shifting or evasion at all, maintained flatly and plainly: (1) A man feels the testimony of God's Spirit, and cannot then deny or doubt his being a child of God. (2) After a time this testimony is withdrawn: not from every child of God; many retain the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end. (3) Then he may doubt whether this testimony was of God; and perhaps at length deny that it was. There is no shadow of contradiction between this and the case of Hannah Richardson.[See letter of Dec. 30, 1745, sect. 7, to him.] For (1) She felt the testimony of God's Spirit, and could not then deny or doubt her being a child of God. (2) After a time this testimony was withdrawn. (3) Then she doubted whether it was of God. Observe: she never forgot or denied that she had such a testimony; but she then doubted whether it was of God. But you have still more to remark upon this head: so I attend you step by step. 15. 'The instances produced' (it should be 'instance,' for you cite but one) 'in support of these high claims, instead of supporting, utterly subvert them. Thus Hannah Richardson had her justification notified; and yet she denied that her sins were forgiven.' You should say, She doubted of it after a time, when the testimony of God's Spirit was withdrawn. 'Now, either this notification was not so distinct as is pretended, or, if distinct, was notified by one of suspected credit, whom she could not believe. Or, if it was both distinct and credible, she was not of sound understanding if she disbelieved it, nor of sound memory if she' (afterwards, it should be) 'doubted or denied that she had ever received such a message.'

That I added after all, I 'am still ready, if it shall be required, to relinquish it at a month's warning,' you ought to have acknowledged as a fresh and signal proof both of uprightness and brotherly kindness. Mr. William Mondet.

To John Cennick Date: May 16, 1748. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1748) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--I know you cannot indemnify me with regard to the rents and covenants I am under, which was the thing I always insisted on, and must insist on still, without encumbering yourselves. If, therefore, you cannot accept the house 'upon these conditions,' the case is determined at once. I wish you much happiness; and am Your very affectionate brother.

I must just stop to inform you (if you know it not) that this whole action of carrying me along against my will was an assault upon the King's highway, contrary to his peace, crown, and dignity. When your deputy had brought me prisoner into the house, he permitted Mr. Grimshaw, the minister of Haworth, Mr. Colbeck [Thomas Colbeck was steward of the Haworth Round, and a devoted class-leader and local preacher. See Laycock's Great Haworth Round, pp. 139-42; and letter of Nov. 25.] of Keighley, and one more [William Batty, one of Ingham's preachers. See Journal, ii. 294n.] to be with me, promising none should hurt them. Soon after, you and your friends came in and required me to promise 'I would come to Roughlee no more.' I told you 'I would cut off my hand rather than make any such promise.' Neither would I promise that none of my friends should come. After abundance of rambling discourse (for I could keep none of you long to one point) from about one o'clock till between three and four, in which one of you justly said, 'No, we will not be like Gamaliel, we will proceed like the Jews,' you seemed a little satisfied with my saying, 'I will not preach at Roughlee this time, nor shall I be here again till August next; then I will show you the authority by which I preach.' You then undertook to quiet the mob; to whom you went and spoke a few words, and their noise immediately ceased, while I walked out with you at the back door. I should have mentioned that I had desired you to let me go several times before, but could not prevail; and that, when I attempted to go with Richard Bocock, the mob came immediately to me, cursing and swearing and throwing whatever came to hand. One of them beat me down to the ground; and when I rose again, the rest came about me like lions and forced me back into the house.

To John Bennet Date: LONDON, November 25, 1748. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1748) Author: John Wesley --- I have received a bill for ten pounds from T. Colbeck, which will defray the present expense of the prosecution. [See the previous three letters.] You do extremely well in receiving subscriptions for paying that debt at Birstall. It will lay such an obligation on the Society as will make them much readier to submit to discipline. You see how needful it is for you to step over into Yorkshire at least once in a quarter. It would be well if you could reach Lincolnshire too, though but for one week. I beg you would largely show them at Halifax how absurd it is to expect I should be at a shilling expense for their lawsuit. They must not begin if they cannot carry it on. If Webster's spirit be not altered, and that speedily, I shall send him back to Plymouth Dock.[Eleazer Webster was evidently a troublesome preacher. See letter of Feb. 9, 1750.] I trust your own soul is not neglected in the multiplicity of business which comes upon you from other men. O be much in prayer! I am often concerned for you. The Spirit of God be your Guide, and His love your portion for ever. To a Friend [23] NEWINGTON, December 10, 1748. DEAR SIR,--1. I have read your letter with attention, and much approve of the spirit with which it is wrote. You speak in love. I desire to do so too; and then no harm can be done on either side. You appear not to be wedded to your own opinion, but open to farther conviction. I would willingly be of the same temper; not obstinately attached to either side of the question. I am clearly satisfied of the necessity of this--a willingness to see what as yet I see not. For I know an unwillingness to be convinced would utterly blind either you or me; and that if we are resolved to retain our present opinion, reason and argument signify nothing.

16. If you are sincere in this plea, if you do not talk of your health while the real objection is your inclination, make a fair trial thus: (1) Take half a pint of milk every morning, with a little bread, not boiled, but warmed only; a man in tolerable health might double the quantity. (2) If this is too heavy, add as much water, and boil it together, with a spoonful of oatmeal. (3) If this agrees not, try half a pint, or a little more, of water-gruel, neither thick nor thin; not sweetened, for that may be apt to make him sick, but with a very little butter, salt, and bread. (4) If this disagrees, try sage, green balm, mint, or pennyroyal tea, infusing only so much of the herb as just to change the colour of the water. (5) Try two or three of these mixed in various proportions. (6) Try ten or twelve other English herbs. (7) Try foltron, a mixture of herbs to be had at many grocers', far healthier as well as cheaper than tea. (8) Try cocoa. If, after having tried each of these for a week or ten days, you find none of them will agree with your constitution, then use (weak green) tea again; but at the same time know that your having used it so long has brought you near the chambers of death. 17. II. 'I do not know,' says another, 'but tea may hurt me: but there is nothing saved by leaving it off; for I am sure other things cost full as much.' I pray, what other things Sack and sugar costs more; and so do ragouts, or pheasants, or ortolans. But what is this to the point We do not say all things are cheaper; but any of the things above mentioned are--at least, if prudently managed. Therefore, if you really desire to save what you can, you will drink tea no more. 18. 'Well, I do not design to buy any more myself; but where others drink it, there is nothing saved by my abstaining.'

I answer: (1) Yes, something is saved, though but little; especially if you tell them before, 'I shall not drink tea.' And many a little, you know, put together will make a great sum. (2) If the whole saved were ever so little, if it were but two mites, when you save this for God and your brethren's sake, it is much. (3) Your example in saving a little now may occasion the saving of more by-and-by. (4) It is not a little advantage which you may reap even now to your own soul, by habituating yourself not to be ashamed of being singular in a good thing; by taking up your cross, and denying yourself even in so small an instance; and by accustoming yourself to act on rational grounds, whether in a little matter or a great. 19. 'But what is saved will be no better employed.' Do you say this with regard to yourself or others If with regard to yourself, it will be your fault if you do not employ it better. I do not say you will, but I am sure you may; and if you do not, it is your own sin and your own shame. If with regard to others, how do you know that it will not be employed better I trust it will. It cannot be denied that it often has and that it always may be. And it is highly probable all who save anything from the best motive will lay it out to the best purpose. 20. 'As to example,' you say, 'I have lately been without hopes of doing any good by it.'

7. From this antagonist you ramble away to another; after a long citation from whom, you subjoin: 'It being agreed, then, that in the original promise there is no intimation of any particular period to which their continuance was limited' (pages 13-14). Sir, you have lost your way. We have as yet nothing to do with their continuance. 'For, till we have learned from those sacred records' (I use your own words) 'what they were and in what manner exerted by the Apostles, we cannot form a proper judgement of those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church; and must consequently dispute at random, as chance or prejudice may prompt us, about things unknown to us' (page 11). Now, sir, if this be true (as without doubt it is), then it necessarily follows that--seeing, from the beginning of your book to the end, you spend not one page to inform either yourself or your readers concerning the nature of these miraculous powers 'as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel'--you dispute throughout the whole 'at random, as chance or prejudice prompts you, about things unknown to you.' 8. Your reply to 'the adversaries of your scheme' (pages 15-27) I may let alone for the present; and the rather, because the arguments used therein will occur again and again. Only I would here take notice of one assertion--'that the miraculous powers conferred on the Apostles themselves were imparted just at the moment of their exertion, and withdrawn again as soon as those particular occasions were served' (page 23). You should not have asserted this, be it true or false, without some stronger proof. 'This, I say, is evident' (ibid.) is not a sufficient proof; nor 'A treatise is prepared on that subject' (page 24). Neither is it proved by that comment of Grotius on our Lord's promise, ['Non omnibus omnia-ita tamen cuilibet credenti tunc data sit admirabilis facultas, quae se, non semper quidem, sed data occasione explicaret' (Grotius in Marcum xvi. 17). ] which, literally translated, runs thus: 'To every believer there was then given some wonderful power, which was to exert itself, not indeed always, but when there was occasion.'

8. But you endeavour to show it is, 'For that surprising confidence,' you say, 'with which the Fathers of the fourth age have affirmed as true what they themselves had forged, or at least knew to be forged' (a little more proof of that), 'makes us suspect that so bold a defiance of truth could not become general at once, but must have been carried gradually to that height by custom and the example of former times' (page 84). It does not appear that it did become general till long after the fourth century. And as this supposition is not sufficiently proved, the inference from it is nothing worth. 9. You say, secondly: 'This age, in which Christianity was established, had no occasion for any miracles. They would not therefore begin to forge miracles at a time when there was no particular temptation to it.' (Ibid.) Yes, the greatest temptation in the world, if they were such men as you suppose. If they were men that would scruple no art or means to enlarge their own credit and authority, they would naturally 'begin to forge miracles' at that time when real miracles were no more. 10. You say, thirdly: 'The later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier, but more learning and less credulity. If these, then, be found either to have forged miracles themselves, or propagated what they knew to be forged, or to have been deluded by the forgeries of others, it must excite the same suspicion of their predecessors.' (Page 85.) I answer: (1) It is not plain that the later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier. Nor (2) That they had less credulity. It seems some of them had much more: witness Hilarion's camel, and smelling a devil or a sinner; though even he was not so quick-scented as St. Pachomius, who (as many believe to this day) could 'smell an heretic at a mile's distance.' (Free Inquiry, pp. 89-90.) But if (3) The earlier Fathers were holier than the later, they were not only less likely to delude others, but (even on Plato's supposition) to be deluded themselves; for they would have more assistance from God.

But pretended miracles, you say, arose thus: 'As the high authority of the apostolic writings excited some of the most learned Christians' (prove that!) 'to forge books under their names; so the great fame of the apostolic miracles would naturally excite some of the most crafty when the Apostles were dead to attempt some juggling tricks in imitation of them. And when these artful pretenders had maintained their ground through the first three centuries, the leading clergy of the fourth understood their interest too well to part with the old plea of miraculous gifts.' (Page 92.) Round assertions indeed! But surely, sir, you do not think that reasonable men will take these for proofs! You are here advancing a charge of the blackest nature. But where are your vouchers Where are the witnesses to support it Hitherto you have not been able to produce one through a course of three hundred years; unless you bring in those heathen, of whose senseless, shameless prejudices you have yourself given so clear an account. But you designed to produce your witnesses in the Free Inquiry a year or two after the Introductory Discourse was published. So you condemn them first, and try them afterwards; you will pass sentence now, and hear the evidence by-and-by! A genuine specimen of that 'impartial regard to truth' which you profess upon all occasions. 13. Another instance of this is in your marginal note: 'The primitive Christians were perpetually reproached for their gross credulity.' They were; but by whom Why, by Jews and heathens. Accordingly the two witnesses you produce here are Celsus the Jew and Julian the apostate. But, lest this should not suffice, you make them confess the charge. 'The Fathers,' your words are, 'defend themselves by saying that they did no more than the philosophers had always done; that Pythagoras's precepts were inculcated with an ipse dixit, and they found the same method useful with the vulgar' (page 93). And is this their whole defence Do the very men to whom you refer, Origen and Arnobius, in the very tracts to which you refer, give no other answer than this argument ad hominem Stand this as another genuine proof of Dr. Middleton's candour and impartiality!

14. A farther proof of your 'frank and open nature,' and of your 'contenting yourself with the discharge of your own conscience by a free declaration of your real sentiments' (page 40), I find in the very next page. Here you solemnly declare: 'Christianity is confirmed by the evidence of such miracles as, of all others on record, are the least liable to exception, and carry the clearest marks of their sincerity; being wrought by Christ and His Apostles for an end so great, so important, as to be highly worthy the interposition of the Deity; wrought by mean and simple men, and delivered by eye-witnesses, whose characters exclude the suspicion of fraud' (page 94). Sir, do you believe one word of what you so solemnly declare You have yourself declared the contrary. But if you do not, where shall we have you Or how can we believe you another time How shall we know, I will not say, when you speak truth, but when you would have us think you do By what criterion shall we distinguish between what is spoken in your real and what in your personated character how discern when you speak as Dr. Middleton and when as the public librarian 14. You go on: 'By granting the Romanists but a single age of miracles after the Apostles, we shall be entangled in difficulties, whence we can never extricate ourselves till we allow the same powers to the present age' (page 96). I will allow them, however, three ages of miracles, and let them make what advantage of it they can.

You begin with the apostolic Fathers--that is, those who lived and conversed with the Apostles. 'There are several,' you say, 'of this character, whose writings still remain to us: St. Barnabas, St. Clemens, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Hermas. Now, if those gifts had subsisted after the days of the Apostles, these must have possessed a large share of them. But if any of them had, he would have mentioned it in his writings, which not one of them has done.' (Page 3.) The argument, fully proposed, runs thus: If any such gifts had subsisted in them or in their days, they must have mentioned them in their circular Epistles to the Churches (for so their predecessors, the Apostles, did); but they did not mention any such gifts therein. Sir, your consequence is not of any force; as will easily appear by a parallel argument: If such gifts had subsisted in St. Peter or in his days, he must have mentioned them in his circular Epistles to the Churches. But he does not mention any such gifts therein; therefore they did not subsist in him or in his days. Your argument, therefore, proves too much; nor can it conclude against an apostolic Father without concluding against the Apostle too. If, therefore, the apostolic Fathers had not mentioned any miraculous gifts in their circular Epistles to the Churches, you could not have inferred that they possessed none; since neither does he mention them in his circular Epistles whom you allow to have possessed them. Of all the Apostles you can produce but one, St. Paul, who makes mention of these gifts: and that not in his circular Epistles to the Churches; for I know not that he wrote any such.

7. But it would have been strange, if you had not somewhere brought in the famous phoenix of Clemens Romanus. And yet you are very merciful upon that head, barely remarking concerning it that 'he alleged the ridiculous story of the phoenix as a type and proof of the resurrection. Whether all the heathen writers treat it as nothing else but a mere fable I know not.' (Page 55.) But that it is so is certain, and consequently the argument drawn from it is weak and inconclusive. Yet it will not hence follow either that Clemens was a wicked man or that he had none of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. 8. There is no real blemish to be found in the whole character of St. Polycarp. But there is one circumstance left upon record concerning him which has the appearance of weakness. And with this you do not fail to acquaint your reader at a convenient season--namely, 'that in the most ancient dispute concerning the time of holding Easter, St. Polycarp and Anicetus severally alleged apostolic tradition for their different practice' (page 60). And it is not improbable that both alleged what was true; that in a point of so little importance the Apostles varied themselves, some of them observing it on the fourteenth day of the moon, and others not. But, be this as it may, it can be no proof either that Polycarp was not an holy man or that he was not favoured with the extraordinary as well as ordinary gifts of the Spirit.

I was not aware that you had begun 'to throw together all which the Fathers have delivered concerning the persons said to have been endued with those extraordinary gifts.' And it seems you have made an end of it! And accordingly you proceed to sum up the evidence, to 'observe, upon the whole, from these characters of the primitive wonder-workers, as given both by friends and enemies, we may fairly conclude that the gifts of those ages were generally engrossed by private Christians who travelled about from city to city to assist the ordinary preachers in the conversion of Pagans by the extraordinary miracles they pretended to perform' (page 24). 8. 'Characters given both by friends and enemies' I Pray, sir, what friends have you cited for this character or what enemies, except only Celsus the Jew (And you are a miserable interpreter for him.) So, from the single testimony of such a witness, you lay it down as an oracular truth that all the miracle-workers of the first three ages were 'mere vagabonds and common cheats,' rambling about from city to city to assist in converting heathens by tricks and imposture! And this you ingeniously call 'throwing together all which the Fathers have delivered concerning them'!

10. 'These things,' you add, 'are so strange, as to give just reason to suspect that there was some original fraud in the case, and that those strolling wonder-workers by a dexterity of juggling imposed upon the pious Fathers, whose strong prejudices and ardent zeal for the interest of Christianity would dispose them to embrace without examination whatever seemed to promote so good a cause' (page 25). You now speak tolerably plain, and would be much disappointed if those who have no 'strong prejudices for Christianity' did not apply what you say of these 'strolling wonder-workers' to the Apostles as well as their successors. 11. A very short answer will suffice: 'These things are so strange.' They are more strange than true. You have not proved one jot or tittle of them yet; therefore the consequences you draw must fall to the ground till you find them some better support. 12. Nay, but 'it is certain and notorious,' you say, 'that this was really the case in some instances'--that is, that 'strolling, juggling wonder-workers imposed upon the pious Fathers' (page 26). Sir, I must come in again with my cuckoo's note,--The proof! where is the proof Till this is produced, I cannot allow that 'this is certain and notorious' even in one individual instance. 13. Let us now stand still and observe what it is you have made out under this second head. What you proposed was 'to throw together all which the primitive Fathers had delivered concerning the persons said to be then endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.' And how have you executed what you proposed You have thrown together a quotation from a Jew, two from heathens, three-quarters of a line from Origen, and three lines from Tertullian! Nothing at all, it is true, to the point in question. But that you could not help. 14. And this, it seems, is 'all you have been able to draw from any of the primitive writers concerning the persons who were endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost'! (Page 21.) Permit me, sir, to apply to you what was spoken on another occasion: 'Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with'--neither sufficient skill, nor industry and application. Besides, you are resolved to draw out of the well what was never in it, and must of course lose all your labour.

7. You charge him, thirdly, with 'treating the spurious books, published under the names of the Sibyl and Hystespes, with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures' (page 33). His words are: 'By the power of evil spirits it was made death to read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl, or of the Prophets.' Well; how does this prove that he treated those books with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures 'But it is certain,' you say, 'that from this example and authority of Justin they were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and rulers of the Church through all succeeding ages' (ibid.). I do not conceive it is certain. I wait your proof, first of the fact, next of the reason you assign for it. The fact itself, that 'these books were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and rulers through all succeeding ages,' is in no wise proved by that single quotation from Clemens Alexandrinus, wherein he urges the heathens with the testimonies of their own authors, of the Sibyl and of Hystaspes (page 34). We cannot infer from hence that he himself held them 'in the highest veneration'; much less that all the Fathers did. And as to the reason you assign for that veneration--the example and authority of Justin--you cite no writer of any kind, good or bad. So he that will believe it may. But some, you tell us, 'impute the forging these books to Justin.' Be pleased to tell us likewise who those are, and what grounds they allege for that imputation. Till then, it can be of no signification. 8. You charge him, fourthly, 'with believing that silly story concerning the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, with saying that he himself when at Alexandria saw the remains of the cells in which the translators were shut up, and with making a considerable mistake in the chronology relating thereto' (page 37). And if all this be allowed, and, over and above, that he 'frequently cites apocryphal books and cites the Scriptures by memory,' what have you gained toward the proof of your grand conclusion--that 'he was either too great a fool or too great a knave to be believed touching a plain matter of fact'

9. You seem sensible of this, and therefore add, fifthly: 'It will be said, perhaps, that these instances show a weakness of judgement, but do not touch the credit of Justin as a witness of fact' (page 29). But can you scrape up nothing from all the dunghills of antiquity that does I dare say you will do your utmost. And, first, you reply: 'The want of judgement alone may in some cases disqualify a man from being a good witness. Thus Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells. And so he was by those who told him there was a statue at Rome inscribed " Simoni Deo Sancto," whereas it was really inscribed " Semoni Sanco Deo," to an old deity of the Sabines. Now,' say you, 'if he was deceived in such obvious facts, how much more easily would he be deceived by subtle and crafty impostors!' (Pages 40-1.) Far less easily. A man of good judgement may be deceived in the inscriptions of statues and points of ancient history. But, if he has only eyes and ears and a small degree of common sense, he cannot be deceived in facts where he is both an eye-and ear witness. 10. For a parting blow you endeavour to prove, sixthly, that Justin was a knave as well as a fool. To this end you remark that 'he charges the Jews with erasing three passages out of the Greek Bible; one whereof stands there still, and the other two were not expunged by some Jew, but added by some Christian. Nay, that able critic and divine, John Croius [Jean Croius or De Croi, Protestent Minister of Usez, wrote theological works in Latin; he died in 1659.]' (you know when to bestow honourable appellations), 'says Justin forged and published this passage for the confirmation of the Christian doctrine, as well as the greatest part of the Sibylline oracles and the sentences of Mercurius.' (Page 42.)

And yet this opinion, as you know full well, has its foundation, not only in the histories of all ages and all nations throughout the habitable world, even where Christianity never obtained, but particularly in Scripture--in abundance of passages both of the Old and New Testament, as where the Israelites were expressly commanded not to 'suffer a witch to live' (ibid.); where St. Paul numbers 'witchcraft' with 'the works of the flesh' (Gal. v. 19-20), and ranks it with adultery and idolatry; and where St. John declares, 'Without are sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers' (Rev. xxii. 15). That the gods of the heathens are devils (1 Cor. x. 30) is declared in terms by one of those who are styled inspired writers. And many conceive that another of them gives us a plain instance of their 'assuming the form of those who were called from the dead' (1 Sam. xxviii. 13-14). Of the power of evil spirits to afflict the minds of men none can doubt who believe there are any such beings. And of their power to afflict the body we have abundant proof both in the history of Job and that of the Gospel demoniacs. I do not mean, sir, to accuse you of believing these things: you have shown that you are guiltless in this matter; and that you pay no more regard to that antiquated book the Bible than you do to the Second Book of Esdras. But, alas! the Fathers were not so far enlightened. And because they were bigoted to that old book, they of consequence held for truth what you assure us was mere delusion and imposture.

These have been answered at large: some of them proved to be false; some, though true, yet not invalidating their evidence. But, supposing we waive the evidence of these two, here are seven more still to come. Oh, but you say: 'If there were twice seven, they only repeat the words which these have taught them.' You say; but how often must you be reminded that saying and proving are two things I grant in three or four opinions some (though not all) of these were mistaken as well as those two. But this by no means proves that they were all knaves together; or that, if Justin Martyr or Irenaeus speaks wrong, I am therefore to give no credit to the evidence of Theophilus or Minutius Felix. 23. You have therefore made a more lame piece of work on this head, if possible, than on the preceding. You have promised great things, and performed just nothing. You have left above three parts in four of your work entirely untouched; as these two are not a fourth part even of the writers you have named as attesting the continuance of the 'extraordinary gifts' after the age of the Apostles. But you have taught that trick at least to your 'vagrant jugglers' to supply the defect of all other arguments. At every dead lift you are sure to play upon us these dear creatures of your own imagination. They are the very strength of your battle, your tenth legion. Yet, if a man impertinently calls for proof of their existence, if he comes close and engages them hand to hand, they immediately vanish away. IV. You are, in the fourth place, to 'review all the several kinds of miraculous gifts which are pretended to have been given, and to observe from the nature of each how far they may reasonably be suspected' (page 72). 'These,' you say, 'are (1) the power of raising the dead; (2) of healing the sick; (3) of casting out devils; (4) of prophesying; (5) of seeing visions; (6) of discovering the secrets of men; (7) expounding the Scriptures; (8) of speaking with tongues.' I had rather have had an account of the miraculous powers as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel. But that account you are not inclined to give. So we will make the best of what we have.

Section I. 1. And, first, as to 'raising the dead.' Irenaeus affirms: 'This was frequently performed on necessary occasions; when, by great fastings and the joint supplication of the Church, the spirit of the dead person returned into him, and the man was given back to the prayers of the saints' (ibid.). 2. But you object: 'There is not an instance of this to be found in the first three centuries' (ibid.). I presume you mean no heathen historian has mentioned it; for Christian historians were not. I answer: (1) It is not probable an heathen historian would have related such a fact had he known it. (2) It is equally improbable he should know it: seeing the Christians knew with whom they had to do; and that, had such an instance been made public, they would not long have enjoyed him who had been given back to their prayers. They could not but remember what had been before, when the Jews sought Lazarus also to kill him: a very obvious reason why a miracle of this particular kind ought not to have been published abroad;--especially considering (3) that it was not designed for the conversion of the heathens; but 'on occasions necessary' for the good of the Church, of the Christian community. (4) It was a miracle proper, above all others, to support and confirm the Christians, who were daily tortured and slain, but sustained by the hope of obtaining a better resurrection. 3. You object, secondly: 'The heathens constantly affirmed the thing itself to be impossible' (page 73). They did so. But is it 'a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead'

2. Of this you seem not insensible already, and therefore fly away to your favourite supposition that 'they were not cured at all, that the whole matter was a cheat from the beginning to the end.' But by what arguments do you evince this The first is, 'The heathens pretended to do the same'; nay, and 'managed the imposture with so much art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it, but insisted always that it was performed by demons or evil spirits' (ibid.). But still the heathens maintained, 'the cures were wrought by their gods--by Aesculapius in particular.' And where is the difference seeing, as was observed before, 'the gods of the heathens were but devils.' 3. But you say, 'Although public monuments were erected in proof and memory of these cures at the time when they were performed, yet it is certain all those heathen miracles were pure forgeries' (page 79). How is it certain If you can swallow this without good proof, you are far more credulous than I. I cannot believe that the whole body of the heathens for so many generations were utterly destitute of common sense any more than of common honesty. Why should you fix such a charge on whole cities and countries You could have done no more, if they had been Christians!

4. But 'diseases thought fatal and desperate are oft surprisingly healed of themselves.' And, therefore, 'we cannot pay any great regard to such stories, unless we knew more precisely in this case the real bounds between nature and miracle' (ibid.). Sir, I understand you well. The drift of the argument is easily seen. It points at the Master as well as His servants; and tends to prove that, after all this talk about miraculous cures, we are not sure there were ever any in the world. But it will do no harm. For although we grant (1) that some recover even in seemingly desperate cases, and (2) that we do not know in any case the precise bounds between nature and miracle; yet it does not follow, Therefore I cannot be assured there ever was a miracle of healing in the world. To explain this by instance: I do not precisely know how far nature can go in healing, that is, restoring sight to the blind; yet this I assuredly know--that, if a man born blind is restored to sight by a word, this is not nature, but miracle. And to such a story, well attested, all reasonable men will pay the highest regard. 5. The sum of what you have advanced on this head is (1) that the heathens themselves had miraculous cures among them; (2) that oil may cure some diseases by its natural efficacy; and (3) that we do not know the precise bounds of nature. All this I allow. But all this will not prove that no miraculous cures were performed either by our Lord and His Apostles or by those who lived in the three succeeding centuries. Section III. 1. The third of the miraculous powers said to have been in the primitive Church is that of casting out devils. The testimonies concerning this are out of number and as plain as words can make them. To show, therefore, that all these signify nothing, and that there were never any devils cast out at all, neither by the Apostles nor since the Apostles (for the argument proves both or neither), is a task worthy of you. And, to give you your just praise, you have here put forth all your strength.

3. But 'leaders of sects,' you say, 'whatever principles they pretend to, have seldom scrupled to use a commodious lie' (page 83). I observe you are quite impartial here. You make no exception of age or nation. It is all one to you whether your reader applies this to the son of Abdallah or the Son of Mary. And yet, sir, I cannot but think there was a difference. I fancy the Jew was an honester man than the Arabian; and though Mahomet used many a commodious lie, yet Jesus of Nazareth did not. 4. However, 'Not one of these Fathers made any scruple of using the hyperbolical style' (that is, in plain English, of lying), 'as an eminent writer of ecclesiastical history declares' (ibid.). You should have said an impartial writer. For who would scruple that character to Mr. Le Clerc And yet I cannot take either his or your bare word for this. Be pleased to produce a little proof. Hitherto you have proved absolutely nothing on the head, but (as your manner is) taken all for granted. 5. You next relate that famous story from Tertullian: 'A woman went to the theatre, and returned possessed with a devil. When the unclean spirit was asked how he dared to assault a Christian, he answered, " I found her on my own ground."' (Ibid.) After relating another, which you endeavour to account for naturally, you intimate that this was a mere lie of Tertullian's. But how is that proved Why, 'Tertullian was an utter enemy to plays and public shows in the theatre.' He was so; but can we infer from thence that he was an utter enemy to common honesty 6. You add: 'The Fathers themselves own that even the Jews, yea, and the heathens, cast out devils. Now, it will be granted that these Jewish and heathen exorcists were mere cheats and impostors. But the Fathers believed they really cast them out. Now, if they could take their tricks for the effects of a supernatural power, well might they be deceived by their own impostors. Or they might think it convenient to oppose one cheat to another.' (Pages 84, 87-8.)

'Deceived,' say you, 'by their own impostors' Why, I thought they were the very men who set them to work! who opposed one cheat to another! Apt scholars, who acted their part so well as even to deceive their masters! But, whatever the heathen were, we cannot grant that all the 'Jewish exorcists were impostors.' Whether the heathens cast out devils or not, it is sure the sons of the Jews cast them out. I mean, upon supposition, that Jesus of Nazareth cast them out; which is a point not here to be disputed. 7. But 'it is very hard to believe what Origen declares, that the devils used to possess and destroy cattle.' You might have said what Matthew and Mark declare concerning the herd of swine; and yet we shall find you by-and-by believing far harder things than this. Before you subjoined the silly story of Hilarion and his camel, [St. Jerome says in his Vita Hilarions Eremitae that a raging camel, who had already trampled on many, was brought with ropes by more than thirty men to Hilarion. Its eyes were bloody, its mouth foaming. Hilarion dismissed the men; and when the camel would have rushed on him, he stretched out his hands and said, 'Thou wilt not terrify me, O devil, with thy vast body; both in the little fox and in the camel thou art one and the same.' The camel fell humbly at his feet with the devil cast out. Kingsley does not give this story in The Hermits.] you should in candour have informed your reader that it is disputed whether the life of Hilarion was wrote by St. Jerome or no. But, be it as it may, I have no concern for either; for they did not live within the first three ages. 8. I know not what you have proved hitherto, though you have affirmed many things and intimated more. But now we come to the strength of the cause contained in your five observations.

Well collected indeed! But I desire a little better testimony than either that of Philo the Jew, or Suidas a lexicographer of the eleventh century, before I believe this. How little Tertullian is to be regarded on this head you yourself show in the very next page. 3. You say, fourthly: 'Montanus and his associates were the authors of these trances. They first raised this spirit of enthusiasm in the Church, and acquired great credit by their visions and ecstasies.' Sir, you forget: they did not 'raise this spirit,' but rather Joel and St. Peter; according to whose words the 'young men saw visions' before Montanus was born. 4. You observe, fifthly, how Tertullian was 'imposed upon by the craft of ecstatic visionaries' (page 99), and then fall upon Cyprian with all your might: your objections to whom we shall now consider. And, first, you lay it down as a postulatum that he was 'fond of power and episcopal authority' (page 101). I cannot grant this, sir: I must have some proof; else this and all you infer from it will go for nothing. You say, secondly: 'In all questionable points of doctrine or discipline, which he had a mind to introduce into the Christian worship, we find him constantly appealing to the testimony of visions and divine revelations. Thus he says to Caecilius that he was divinely admonished to mix water with wine in the sacrament in order to render it effectual.' You set out unhappily enough. For this can never be a proof of Cyprian's appealing to visions and revelations in order to introduce questionable points of doctrine or discipline into the Christian worship; because this point was unquestionable, and could not then be 'introduced into the Christian worship,' having had a constant place therein, as you yourself have showed (Introductory Discourse, p. 57), at least from the time of Justin Martyr. Indeed, neither Justin nor Cyprian use those words, 'in order to render it effectual.' They are an ingenious and honest addition of your own, in order to make something out of nothing.

13. From Justin Martyr also you cite but part of a sentence. He speaks very nearly thus: 'That the Spirit of God, descending from heaven, and using righteous men as the quill strikes the harp or lyre, may reveal unto us the knowledge of divine and heavenly things.' And does Justin expressly affirm in these words that all the Prophets were 'transported out of their senses' Tertullian's words are: 'A man being in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, must needs lose sense.' ['Necesse est, excidat sensu.'] Now, as it is not plain that he means hereby 'lose his understanding' (it being at least equally probable that he intends no more than losing for the time the use of his outward senses), neither can it be said that Tertullian expressly affirms, 'The Prophets were all out of their senses.' Therefore you have not so much as one Father to vouch for what you say was 'the current opinion in those days.' 14. I doubt not but all men of learning will observe a circumstance which holds throughout all your quotations. The strength of your argument constantly lies in a loose and paraphrastical manner of translating. The strength of mine lies in translating all in the most close and literal manner; so that closeness of translation strengthens mine in the same proportion as it weakens your arguments: a plain proof of what you elsewhere observe, that you use 'no subtle refinements or forced constructions' (Preface, p. 31). 15. But to return to Cyprian. 'I cannot forbear,' you say, 'relating two or three more of his wonderful stories. The first is, A man who had denied Christ was presently struck dumb: the second, A woman who had done so was seized by an unclean spirit, and soon after died in great anguish: the third, of which he says he was an eye-witness, is this,--The heathen magistrates gave to a Christian infant part of what had been offered to an idol. When the deacon forced the consecrated wine on this child, it was immediately seized with convulsions and vomiting; as was a woman who had apostatized, upon taking the consecrated elements.' (Pages 112-13.) The other two relations Cyprian does not affirm of his own personal knowledge.

3. 'But no other Father has made the least claim to it' (page 120). Perhaps none of those whose writings are now extant--at least, not in those writings which are extant. But what are these in comparison of those which are lost And how many were burning and shining lights within three hundred years after Christ who wrote no account of themselves at all--at least, none which has come to our hands But who are they that speak of it as a gift peculiar to the times of the Apostles You say, 'There is not a single Father who ventures to speak of it in any other manner' (ibid.). Well, bring but six Ante-Nicene Fathers who speak of it in this manner, and I will give up the whole point. 4. But you say, 'After the apostolic times there is not in all history one instance even so much as mentioned of any particular person who ever exercised this gift' (ibid.). You must mean either that the heathens have mentioned no instance of this kind (which is not at all surprising), or that Irenaeus does not mention the names of those many persons who in his time exercised this gift. And this also may be allowed without affecting in any wise the credibility of his testimony concerning them. 5. I must take notice here of another of your postulatums which leads you into many mistakes. With regard to past ages, you continually take this for granted: 'What is not recorded was not done.' But this is by no means a self-evident axiom--nay, possibly it is not true. For there may be many reasons in the depth of the wisdom of God for His doing many things at various times and places, either by His natural or supernatural power, which were never recorded at all. And abundantly more were recorded once, and that with the fullest evidence, whereof, nevertheless, we find no certain evidence now, at the distance of fourteen hundred years.

6. Perhaps this may obtain in the very case before us. Many may have spoken with new tongues of whom this is not recorded--at least, the records are lost in a course of so many years. Nay, it is not only possible that it may be so, but it is absolutely certain that it is so: and you yourself must acknowledge it; for you acknowledge that the Apostles when in strange countries spoke with strange tongues--that St. John, for instance, when in Asia Minor, St. Peter when in Italy (if he was really there), and the other Apostles when in other countries, in Parthia, Media Phrygia, Pamphylia, spoke each to the natives of each in their own tongues the wonderful works of God. And yet there is no authentic record of this: there is not in all history one well-attested instance of any particular Apostle's exercising this gift in any country whatsoever. Now, sir, if your axiom were allowed, what would be the ,consequence Even that the Apostles themselves no more spoke with tongues than any of their successors. 7. I need, therefore, take no trouble about your subsequent reasonings, seeing they are built on such a foundation. Only I must observe an historical mistake which occurs toward the bottom of your next page. Since the Reformation, you say, 'this gift has never once been heard of or pretended to by the Romanists themselves' (page 122). But has it been pretended to (whether justly or not) by no others, though not by the Romanists Has it 'never once been heard of' since that time Sir, your memory fails you again: it has undoubtedly been pretended to, and that at no great distance either from our time or country. It has been heard of more than once no farther off than the valleys of Dauphiny. Nor is it yet fifty years ago since the Protestant inhabitants of those valleys so loudly pretended to this and other miraculous powers as to give much disturbance to Paris itself. And how did the King of France confute that presence and prevent its being heard any more Not by the pen of his scholars, but by (a truly heathen way) the swords and bayonets of his dragoons.

Might it not be well, sir, not to be quite so sure yet You may not always have the laugh on your side. You are not yet infallibly assured but that even Protestantism may produce something worth an answer. There may be some Protestants, for aught you know, who have a few grains of common sense left, and may find a way to defend, at least the Ante-Nicene Fathers, without 'disgracing their own character.' Even such an one as I have faintly attempted this; although I neither have, nor expect to have, any preferment, not even to be a Lambeth chaplain, which if Dr. Middleton is not, it is not his own fault. V. 1. The last thing you proposed was 'to refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.' To what you have offered on this head I must likewise attempt a short reply. You say: 'It is objected, first, that, by the character I have given of the Fathers, the authority of the books of the New Testament, which were transmitted to us through their hands, will be rendered precarious and uncertain' (page 190). After a feint of confuting it, you frankly acknowledge the whole of this objection. 'I may venture,' you say, 'to declare that, if this objection be true, it cannot hurt my argument. For if it be natural and necessary that the craft and credulity of witnesses should always detract from the credit of their testimony, then who can help it And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.' (Page 192.) 'If it be proved'! Very true. If that charge against the Fathers were really and substantially proved, the authority of the New Testament would be at an end so far as it depends on one kind of evidence. But that charge is not proved. Therefore even the traditional authority of the New Testament is as firm as ever. 2. 'It is objected,' you say, 'secondly, that all suspicion of fraud in the case of the primitive miracles is excluded by that public appeal and challenge which the Christian apologists make to their enemies the heathens to come and see with their own eyes the reality of the facts which they attest' (page 193).

No: I conceive the improbability supposed lies wholly on the other side. Whatever the Government of heathen Rome was (which I presume you will not depreciate), the Government of England is remarkable for tenderness to the very meanest subject. It is, therefore, not improbable in the least that an address from some thousands of those subjects, how contemptible soever they were generally esteemed, would not be totally disregarded by such a Government. But that they should 'not know that any such had been addressed to them' is not only improbable but morally impossible. If, therefore, it were possible for the heathens to 'have a worse opinion of the ancient Christians than we,' you say, 'have of our modern fanatics,' still it is utterly incredible that the Roman Government should, not only 'take no notice of their apologies,' but 'not even know that any such were addressed to them.' 4. 'But the publishing books was more expensive then than it is now; and therefore we cannot think the Christians of those days were able to provide such a number of them as was sufficient for the information of the public' (pages 198-9). Nay, if they were not able to provide themselves food and raiment, they would be sure to provide a sufficient number of these-sufficient, at least, for the information of the Emperor and Senate, to whom those apologies were addressed. And how great a number, do you suppose, might suffice for them How many hundred or thousand copies I apprehend the Emperor would be content with one; and one more would be needful for the Senate. Now, I really believe the Christians of those days were able to provide both these copies--nay, and even two more, if it should have fallen out that two or three Emperors were on the throne; even though we should suppose that in Tertullian's time there were but forty thousand of them in all Rome.

We have been long disputing about Christians, about Christianity, and the evidence whereby it is supported. But what do these terms mean Who is a Christian indeed What is real, genuine Christianity And what is the surest and most accessible evidence (if I may so speak) whereby I may know that it is of God May the God of the Christians enable me to speak on these heads in a manner suitable to the importance of them! Section I. 1. I would consider, first, Who is a Christian indeed What does that term properly imply It has been so long abused, I fear, not only to mean nothing at all, but (what was far worse than nothing) to be a cloak for the vilest hypocrisy, for the grossest abominations and immoralities of every kind, that it is high time to rescue it out of the hands of wretches that are a reproach to human nature, to show determinately what manner of man he is to whom this name of right belongs. 2. A Christian cannot think of the Author of his being without abasing himself before Him, without a deep sense of the distance between a worm of earth and Him that sitteth on the circle of the heavens. In His presence he sinks into the dust, knowing himself to be less than nothing in His eye, and being conscious, in a manner words cannot express, of his own littleness, ignorance, foolishness. So that he can only cry out from the fullness of his heart, 'O God I what is man what am I'

8. Now, how highly desirable is such a faith, were it only on its own account! For how little does the wisest of men know of anything more than he can see with his eyes! What clouds and darkness cover the whole scene of things invisible and eternal! What does he know even of himself as to his invisible part what of his future manner of existence How melancholy an account does the prying, learned philosopher (perhaps the wisest and best of all heathens), the great, the venerable Marcus Antoninus, give of these things! What was the result of all his serious researches, of his high and deep contemplations 'Either dissipation, of the soul as well as the body, into the common, unthinking mass; or reabsorption into the universal fire, the unintelligent source of all things; or some unknown manner of conscious existence after the body sinks to rise no more.' One of these three he supposed must succeed death; but which he had no light to determine. Poor Antoninus! With all his wealth, his honour, his power; with all his wisdom and philosophy,-- What points of knowledge did he gain That life is sacred all-and vain: Sacred, how high, and vain, how low He could not tell, but died to know.' [Gambold's Epitaph: where in line 2 it is 'was,' not 'is'; and line 4 'He knew not here, but dy'd to know.'] 9. He 'died to know'! And so must you, unless you are now a partaker of Christian faith. O consider this! Nay, and consider, not only how little you know of the immensity of the things that are beyond sense and time, but how uncertainly do you know even that little! How faintly glimmering a light is that you have! Can you properly be said to know any of these things Is that knowledge any more than bare conjecture And the reason is plain. You have no senses suitable to invisible or eternal objects. What desiderata, then, especially to the rational, the reflecting part of mankind, are these,--a more extensive knowledge of things invisible and eternal, a greater certainty in whatever knowledge of them we have, and (in order to both) faculties capable of discerning things invisible!

10. Is it not so Let impartial reason speak. Does not every thinking man want a window, not so much in his neighbour's as in his own breast He wants an opening there, of whatever kind, that might let in light from eternity. He is pained to be thus feeling after God so darkly, so uncertainly; to know so little of God, and indeed so little of any beside material objects. He is concerned that he must see even that little, not directly, but in the dim, sullied glass of sense; and consequently so imperfectly and obscurely that it is all a mere enigma still. 11. Now, these very desiderata faith supplies. It gives a more extensive knowledge of things invisible, showing what eye had not seen, nor ear heard, neither could it before enter into our heart to conceive. And all these it shows in the clearest light, with the fullest certainty and evidence. For it does not leave us to receive our notices of them by mere reflection from the dull glass of sense; but resolves a thousand enigmas of the highest concern by giving faculties suited to things invisible. Oh who would not wish for such a faith, were it only on these accounts! How much more, if by this I may receive the promise, I may attain all that holiness and happiness! 12. So Christianity tells me; and So I find it, may every real Christian say. I now am assured that these things are so: I experience them in my own breast. What Christianity (considered as a doctrine) promised is accomplished in my soul. And Christianity, considered as an inward principle, is the completion of all those promises. It is holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit, a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life. Section III. 1. And this I conceive to be the strongest evidence of the truth of Christianity. I do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind and in its degree. And yet I cannot set it on a level with this.

It is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time, as it must necessarily pass through so many hands in a continued succession of ages. But no length of time can possibly affect the strength of this internal evidence. It is equally strong, equally new, through the course of seventeen hundred years. It passes now, even as it has done from the beginning, directly from God into the believing soul. Do you suppose time will ever dry up this stream Oh no! It shall never be cut off: Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis aevum. [Horace's Epistles, I. ii. 43: 'It flows and will for ever flow.'] 2. Traditional evidence is of an extremely complicated nature, necessarily including so many and so various considerations, that only men of a strong and clear understanding can be sensible of its full force. On the contrary, how plain and simple is this! and how level to the lowest capacity! Is not this the sum--'One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see'! An argument so plain, that a peasant, a woman, a child may feel all its force. 3. The traditional evidence of Christianity stands, as it were, a great way off; and therefore, although it speaks loud and clear, yet makes a less lively impression. It gives us an account of what was transacted long ago in far distant times as well as places. Whereas the inward evidence is intimately present to all persons at all times and in all places. It is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, if thou believes" in the Lord Jesus Christ. 'This,' then, 'is the record,' this is the evidence, emphatically so called, 'that God hath given unto us eternal life; and this life is in His Son.'

4. If, then, it were possible (which I conceive it is not) to shake the traditional evidence of Christianity, still he that has the internal evidence (and every true believer hath the witness or evidence in himself) would stand firm and unshaken. Still he could say to those who were striking at the external evidence, 'Beat on the sack of Anaxagoras.' [Anaxagoras (500-458 B.C,), the most illustrious of the Ionic philosophers, had Euripides, Pericles, and possibly Socrates, in his philosophical school at Athens. He thought that all bodies were composed of atoms shaped by nous, or mind. He was indicted for impiety, and was only saved from death by the influence and eloquence of Pericles.] But you can no more hurt my evidence of Christianity than the tyrant could hurt the spirit of that wise man. 5. I have sometimes been almost inclined to believe that the wisdom of God has in most later ages permitted the external evidence of Christianity to be more or less clogged and encumbered for this very end, that men (of reflection especially) might not altogether rest there, but be constrained to look into themselves also and attend to the light shining in their hearts. Nay, it seems (if it may be allowed for us to pry so far into the reasons of the divine dispensations) that, particularly in this age, God suffers all kind of objections to be raised against the traditional evidence of Christianity, that men of understanding, though unwilling to give it up, yet, at the same time they defend this evidence, may not rest the whole strength of their cause thereon, but seek a deeper and firmer support for it. 6. Without this I cannot but doubt, whether they can long maintain their cause; whether, if they do not obey the loud call of God, and lay far more stress than they have hitherto done on this internal evidence of Christianity, they will not one after another give up the external, and (in heart at least) go over to those whom they are now contending with; so that in a century or two the people of England will be fairly divided into real Deists and real Christians.

9. Oh that the time were come! How do I long for you to be partakers of the exceeding great and precious promise! How am I pained when I hear any of you using those silly terms which the men of form have taught you, calling the mention of the only thing you want 'cant'! the deepest wisdom, the highest happiness 'enthusiasm'! What ignorance is this! How extremely despicable would it make you in the eyes of any but a Christian! But he cannot despise you who loves you as his own soul, who is ready to lay down his life for your sake. 10. Perhaps you will say, 'But this internal evidence of Christianity affects only those in whom the promise is fulfilled. It is no evidence to me.' There is truth in this objection. It does affect them chiefly, but it does not affect them only. It cannot in the nature of things be so strong an evidence to others as it is to them. And yet it may bring a degree of evidence, it may reflect some light on you also. For (1) You see the beauty and loveliness of Christianity when it is rightly understood, and you are sure there is nothing to be desired in comparison of it. (2) You know the Scripture promises this, and says it is attained by faith, and by no other way. (3) You see clearly how desirable Christian faith is even on account of its own intrinsic value. (4) You are a witness that the holiness and happiness above described can be attained no other way. The more you have laboured after virtue and happiness, the more convinced you are of this. Thus far, then, you need not lean upon other men; thus far you have personal experience.

To John Bennet Date: LONDON, January 9, 1749. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1749) Author: John Wesley --- What can be done more for William Darney's Societies [See letter of Feb. 9, 1750.] than this First, that you should visit them once or twice in a quarter; and then, that either John Nelson or our Yorkshire preacher should go through them as often as possible. I am sending a messenger to Sir John Strange (the other counsel), lest the Lancashire cause should be neglected on occasion of Mr. Glanville's death.[See Journal, iii. 328-9, 389; and letter of Aug. 26, 1748.] I wish you could talk yourself with James Hargrave. 'Tis very probable it would do good. I know not what to say concerning H. D. 'Tis an exceeding difficult case. I have no objection to your preaching in any meetinghouse. The place does not make the Dissenter. After you have once more talked freely and mildly to Sisters B-and C-, if they will not hear, you must let them go. [On the same page, and apparently part of the same letter, is the following:]

I must beg you, sir, in your Third Part to inform your reader that, whenever any solecism or mangled sentences appear in the quotations from my writings, they are not chargeable upon me; that if the sense be mine (which is not always; sometimes you do me too much honor even in this), yet I lay no claim to the manner of expression; the English is all your own. 14. ‘Corporal severities or mortification by tormenting the flesh’ (page 31) is the next thing you charge upon me. Almost two sentences you bring in proof of this. The one, ‘Our bed being wet’ (it was in a storm at sea), ‘I laid me down on the floor, and slept sound till morning; and I believe I shall not find it needful to go to bed, as it is called, any more.’ But whether I do or not, how will you prove that my motive is to ' gain a reputation for sanctity’ I desire (if it be not too great a favor) a little evidence for this. The other fragment of a sentence speaks ‘of bearing cold on the naked head, rain and wind, frost and snow’ (page 32). True; but not as matter of ‘mortification by tormenting the flesh.’ Nothing less. These things are not spoken of there as voluntary instances of mortification (you yourself know perfectly well they are not, only you make free with your friend), but as some of the unavoidable inconveniences which attend preaching in the open air. Therefore you need not be so ‘sure that the Apostle condemns that ’afeda sat, “not sparing the body,” as useless and superstitious, and that it is a false show of humility’ (page 33). Humility is entirely out of the question, as well as chastity, in the case of hardships endured (but not properly chosen) out of love to the souls for which Christ died. 15. You add a word or two of my ‘ardent desire of going to hell,’ which, you think, I ‘adopted from the Jesuit Nieremberg’ (page 34). Sir, I know not the man. I am wholly a stranger both to his person and to his doctrine. But if this is his doctrine, I disclaim it from my heart. I ardently desire that both you and I may go to heaven.

To put this out of dispute, you go on: ‘Thus faith and being born of God are said to be an instantaneous work, at once, and in a moment, as lightning. Justification, the same as regeneration, and having a lively faith, this always in a moment.’ (Ibid.) I know not which to admire most, the English or the sense, which you here father upon me; but in truth it is all your own: I do not thus confound faith and being born of God. I always speak of them as different things; it is you that thus jumble them together. It is you who discover justification also to be the same as regeneration and having a lively faith. I take them to be three different things -- so different as not ever to come under one genus. And yet it is true that each of these, ‘as far as I know,’ is at first experienced suddenly; although two of them (I leave you to find out which) gradually increase from that hour. 21. ‘After these sudden conversions,’ say you, ‘they receive their assurances of salvation’ (page 43). Sir, Mr. Bedford’s [See letter of Sept. 28, 1738.] ignorance in charging this doctrine upon me might be involuntary, and I am persuaded was real. But yours cannot be so. It must be voluntary, if it is not rather affected. For you had before you while you wrote the very tract wherein I corrected Mr. Bedford's mistake and explicitly declared, ‘The assurance whereof I speak is not an assurance of salvation.’ And the very passages you cite from me prove the same; every one of which (as you yourself know in your own conscience) relates wholly and solely to present pardon, not to future salvation. Of Christian perfection (page 45) I shall not say anything to you, till you have learned a little heathen honesty. 22. That this is a lesson you have not yet learned appears also from your following section, wherein you roundly affirm, ‘Whatever they think, say, or do’ (that is, the Methodists, according to their own account) ‘is from God. And whatever opposeth is from the devil.’ I doubt not but Mr. Church believed this to be true when he asserted it. But this is no plea for you, who, having read the answer to Mr. Church, still assert what you know to be false.

26. As a farther proof of my enthusiasm you mention ‘special directions, mission, and calls by immediate revelation’ (page 67); for an instance of which you cite those words, ‘I know and am assured that God sent forth His light and His truth.’ I did know this. But do I say ‘by immediate revelation’ Not a little about it. This is your own ingenious improvement upon my words. ‘However, it was by a special direction; for your own words in the same paragraph are, “From the direction I received from God this day, touching an affair of the greatest importance”’ (pages 68-9). What, are these words in the same paragraph with those, ‘I know and am assured God sent forth His light and His truth’ Why, then, do you tear the paragraph in two, and put part in your sixty-seventh, part in your sixty-eighth and sixty-ninth pages Oh for a plain reason -- to make it look like two instances of enthusiasm, otherwise it could have made but one at the most! But you cannot make out one till you have proved that these directions were by immediate revelation. I never affirmed they were. I now affirm they were not. Now, sir, make your best of them. You add: ‘Let me mention a few directions coming by way of command. Mr. Wesley says, “I came to Mr. Delamotte's, where I expected a cool reception; but God had prepared the way before me.”’ (Page 69.) What, by a command to Mr. Delamotte Who told you so Not I, nor any one else, only your own fruitful imagination. 27. Your next discovery is more curious still -- that ‘itinerants order what they want at a public-house, and then tell the landlord that he will be damned if he takes anything of them’ (page 69).

‘From those words, “Beloved, believe not every spirit; but try the spirits whether they be of God,” I told them they were not to judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by common report, or by their own inward feelings -- no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revelations, supposed to be made to their souls, any more than by their tears, or any involuntary effects wrought upon their bodies. I warned them all these were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature; they might be from God, and they might not; and were therefore not simply to be relied on, any more than simply to be condemned, but to be tried by a farther rule; to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony.’ Sir, can you show them a better way 32. The last proof that you produce of my enthusiasm is my ‘talking of the great work which God is now beginning to work upon earth' (page 80). I own the fact. I do talk of such a work. But I deny the consequence; for if God has begun a great work, then the saying He has is no enthusiasm. To bring sinners to repentance, to save them from their sins, is allowed by all to be the work of God. Yea, and to save one sinner is a great work of God; much more to save many. But many sinners are saved from their sins at this day in London, in Bristol, in Kingswood, in Cornwall, in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in Whitehaven, in many other parts of England, in Wales, in Ireland, in Scotland, upon the continent of Europe, in Asia, and in America. This I term ‘a great work of God’ -- so great as I have not read of for several ages. You ask how I know so great a work is wrought now - ‘by inspiration’ No; but by common sense. I know it by the evidence of my own eyes and ears. I have seen a considerable part of it; and I have abundant testimony, such as excludes all possible doubt, for what I have not seen.

To John Baily Date: LIMERICK, June 8, 1750. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1750) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND SIR, -- 1. Why do you not subscribe your name to a performance so perfectly agreeing both as to the matter and form with the sermons you have been occasionally preaching for more than a year last past As to your seeming to disclaim it by saying once and again, ‘I am but a plain, simple man,’ and ‘The doctrine you teach is only a revival of the old Antinomian heresy, I think they call it,’ I presume it is only a pious fraud. But how came so plain and simple a man to know the meaning of the Greek word Philalethes Sir, this is not of a piece. If you did not care to own your child, had not you better have subscribed the second (as well as the first) letter George Fisher [The letter thus subscribed was published in Cork on May 30, 1750.] 2. I confess you have timed your performance well. When the other pointless thing was published, I came unluckily to Cork on the selfsame day. But you might now suppose I was at a convenient distance. However, I will not plead this as an excuse for taking no notice of your last favor; although, to say the truth, I scarce know how to answer it, as you write in a language I am not accustomed to. Both Dr. Tucker, Dr. Church, and all the other gentlemen who have wrote to me in public for some years have wrote as gentlemen, having some regard to their own, whatever my character was. But as you fight in the dark, you regard not what weapons you use. We are not, therefore, on even terms: I cannot answer you in kind; I am constrained to leave this to your good allies of Blackpool and Fair Lane. [Celebrated parts of Cork.] I shall first state the facts on which the present controversy turns, and then consider the most material parts of your performance.

2. But, before I proceed, I must beg leave to ask, who is this evidence against the other five Why, one that neither dares show his face nor tell his name or the place of his abode; one that is ashamed (and truly not without cause) of the dirty work he is employed in, so that we could not even conjecture who he was but that his speech bewrayeth him. How much credit is due to such an evidence let any man of reason judge. 3. This worthy witness falls foul upon Mr. Cownley, and miserably murders a tale he has got by the end (page 13). Sir, Mr. M[assiot] is nothing obliged to you for bringing the character of his niece into question. He is perfectly satisfied that Mr. Cownley acted in that whole affair with the strictest regard both to honor and conscience. You next aver that Mr. Reeves ‘asked a young woman whether she had a mind to go to hell with her father’ (page 16). It is possible. I will neither deny nor affirm it without some better proof. But suppose he did; unless I know the circumstances of the case, I could not say whether he spoke right or wrong. 4. But what is this to the ‘monstrous, shocking, amazing blasphemy spoken by Mr. Charles Wesley who one day,’ you say, ‘preaching on Hammond's Marsh, called out, “Has any of you got the Spirit” and when none answered said, “I am sure some of you have got it; for I feel virtue go out of me”’ (page 18). Sir, do you expect any one to believe this story I doubt it will not pass even at Cork; unless with your wise friend who said, ‘Methodists! Aye, they are the people who place all their religion in wearing long whiskers.’ 5. In the same page you attack Mr. Williams for applying those words, ‘I thy Maker am thy husband.’ Sir, by the same rule that you conclude ‘these expressions could only flow from a mind full of lascivious ideas,’ you may conclude the 45th Psalm to be only a wanton sonnet and the Canticles a counterpart to Rochester's poems. [John Wilmot, second Earl of Rochester (1647-80), poet and libertine, friend of Charles II and the second Duke of Buckingham, wrote amorous lyrics.]

To Ebenezer Blackwell Date: DUBLIN, July 21, 1750. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1750) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- I have had so hurrying a time for two or three months, as I scarce ever had before - such a mixture of storms and clear sunshine, of huge applause and huge opposition. Indeed, the Irish in general keep no bounds I think there is not such another nation in Europe so Impetuous in their love and in their hate. That any of the Methodist preachers are alive is a clear proof of an overruling Providence; for we know not where we are safe. A week or two ago in a time of perfect peace twenty people assaulted one of our preachers, and a few that were riding with him, near Limerick. He asked their captain what they intended to do, who calmly answered, ‘To murder you!’ and accordingly presented a pistol, which snapped twice or thrice Mr. Fenwick [Michael Fenwick, See letter of Sept. 12, 1755.] then rode away. The other pursued and fired after him, but could not overtake him. Three of his companions they left for dead. But some neighboring Justice of the Peace did not take it well; so they procured the cut-throats to be apprehended; and it is supposed they will be in danger of transportation, though murder is a venial sin in Ireland. -- I am, dear sir.

To Dr. Lavington, Bishop of Exeter Date: LONDON November 27, 1750. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1750) Author: John Wesley --- MY LORD, -- 1. I was grieved when I read the following words in the Third Part of the Enthusiasm of Methodist and Papists Compared [See letters of Feb. 1, 1750, and Dec. 1751, to him.]: ‘A sensible, honest woman told the Bishop of Exeter, in presence of several witness, that Mr. John Wesley came to her house and questioned her whether she had “an assurance of her salvation.” Her answer was that “she hoped she should be saved but had no absolute assurance of it.” “Why, then,” replied he, “you are in hell, you are damned already.” This so terrified the poor woman, who was then with child, that she was grievously aired of miscarrying, and could not in a long time recover her right mind. For this, and the Methodists asking her to live upon free cost, she determined to admit no more of them into her house. So much is her own account to his Lordship, on whose authority it is here published.’ 2. This renewed the concern I felt some time since when I was informed (in letters which I have still by me of your Lordship's publishing this account, both at Plymouth in Devonshire and at Truro in Cornwall, before the clergy assembled from all parts of those counties, at the solemn season of your Lordship’s visiting your diocese. But I was not informed that your Lordship showed a deep concern for the honor of God, which you supposed to be so dreadfully violated, or a tender compassion for a presbyter whom you believed to be rushing into everlasting destruction.

3. In order to be more fully informed, on Saturday, August 25, 1750, Mr. Trembath of St. Gennys, Mr. Haime of Shaftesbury, and I called at Mr. Morgan's at Mitchell. The servant telling me her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the ‘honest, sensible woman.’ I immediately asked, ‘Did I ever tell you or your husband that you would be damned if you took any money of me’ (So the story ran in the First Part of the Comparison; it has now undergone a very considerable alteration.) ‘Or did you or he ever affirm’ (another circumstance related at Truro) ‘that I was rude with your maid’ She replied vehemently, ‘Sir, I never said you was or that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But we have been belied as well as our neighbors.’ She added: ‘When the Bishop came down last, he sent us word that he would dine at our house; but he did not, being invited to a neighboring gentleman’s He sent for me thither and said, “Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down Do you know Mr. Wesley Did not he tell you you would be damned if you took any money of him And did not he offer rudeness to your maid” I told him, “No, my Lord; he never said any such thing to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him; but a man told me once (who, I was told, was a Methodist preacher) that I should be damned if I did not know my sins were forgiven.”’ 4. This is her own account given to me. And an account it is irreconcilably different (notwithstanding some small resemblance in the last circumstance) from that she is affirmed to have given your Lordship. Whether she did give that account to your Lordship or no, your Lordship knows best. That the comparer affirms it is no proof at all, since he will affirm anything that suits his purpose.

10. One good effect of my thus meeting him on his own ground is visible already. Instead of endeavoring to defend he entirely gives up the First Part of his Comparison. Indeed, I did not expect this, when I observed that the Third Part was addressed to me. I took it for granted that he had therein aimed at something like a reply to my answer; but, going on, I found myself quite mistaken. He never once attempts a reply to one page, any otherwise than by screaming out, ‘Pettiness, scurrility, effrontery,’ and in subjoining that deep remark, ‘Paper and time would be wasted on such stuff' (Third Part, Preface, p. 15). 11. I cannot but account it another good effect that he is something less confident than he was before. He is likewise not more angry or more bitter, for that cannot be, but a few degrees more serious. So that I plainly perceive this is the way I am to take if I should have leisure to answer the Third Part; although it is far from my desire to write in this manner: it is as contrary to my inclination as to my custom. 12. But is it possible that a person of your Lordship's character should countenance such a performance as this It cannot be your Lordship's desire to pour contempt on all that is truly venerable among men! to stab Christianity to the heart under the color of opposing enthusiasm, and to increase and give a sanction to the profaneness which already overspreads our land as a flood! 13. Were the Methodists ever so bad, yet are they not too despicable and inconsiderable for your Lordship’ notice

To James Wheatley Date: BRISTOL, June 25 1751. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1751) Author: John Wesley --- Because you have wrought folly in Israel, grieved the Holy Spirit of God, betrayed your own soul into temptation and sin, and the souls of many others, whom you ought, even at the peril of your own life, to have guarded against all sin; because you have given occasion to the enemies of God, whenever they shall know these things, to blaspheme the ways and truth of God: We can in no wise receive you as a fellow laborer till we see clear proofs of your real and deep repentance. Of this you have given us no proof yet. You have not so much as named one single person in all England or Ireland with whom you have behaved ill, except those we knew before. The last and lowest proof of such repentance which we can receive is that: that, till our next Conference (which we hope will be in October), you abstain both from preaching and from practicing physic. If you do not, we are clear; we cannot answer for the consequences. [Wheatley’s immorality ‘put my brother and me,’ says Charles Wesley, ‘upon a resolution of strictly examining into the life and moral behavior of every preacher in connection with us; and the office fell upon me.’ He set out for this purpose on June 29. His brother wrote frequently to him during these anxious weeks. Dr. Whitehead has preserved some fragments of Wesley's letters which show how jealously the brothers watched over their band of helpers. See Whitehead's Wesley, ii. 266--70. July 17. -- I fear for C.S. [Charles Skelton. He left Wesley in April 1754, intending to settle at Bury, but became an Independent minister in Southwark. See Journal, iii. 403, 470; iv. 93, 295.] and J.C. [Joseph Cownley, one of Wesley's best preachers. He died on Oct. 8, 1792. See Wesley’s Veterans iv. 122-69; and letter of Sept. 20, 1746.] more and more. I have heard they frequently and bitterly rail against the Church. [On this Charles puts the following query:] What assurance can we have that they will not forsake it, at least when we are dead Ought we to admit any man for a preacher till we can trust his invariable attachment to the Church

[London], August 3. -- I heartily concur with you in dealing with all, not only with disorderly walkers, but also triflers, aa, ppa, the effeminate and busybodies, as with M. F. [See C. Wesley's Journal, ii. 90-1. He heard Michael Fenwick preach at Leeds () on Aug. 5. ‘It was beyond description.... I talked closely with him, utterly averse to working, and told him plainly he should either labor with his hands or preach no more. He hardly complied, though he confessed it was his ruin, his having been taken off his business. I answered I would repair the supposed injury, by setting him up again in his shop.’ See letter of Sept. 12, 1755. See also ibid. p. 94: ‘I heard J. J., the drummer, again, and liked him worse than at first’] I spoke to one this morning, so that I was even amazed at myself. [London], August 8. -- We must have forty itinerant preachers, or drop some of our Societies. You cannot so well judge of this without seeing the letters I receive from all parts. [London], August 15. -- If our preachers do not, nor will not, spend all their time in study and saving souls, they must be employed dose in other work or perish. [London], August 17. -- C. S. pleads for a kind of aristocracy, and says you and I should do nothing without the consent of all the preachers; otherwise we govern arbitrarily, to which they cannot submit. Whence is this [Cullompton], August 24. -- Oh that you and I may arise and stand upright! [See next letter for Charles Wesley's verdict.] I quite agree with you: let us have but six, so we are all one. I have sent one more home to his work. We may trust God to send forth more laborers; only be not unwilling to receive them, when there is reasonable proof that He has sent them. [Wesley says on Aug. 21 that in Wiltshire and Devonshire he ‘found more and more proof that the poor wretch [Wheatley] whom we had lately disowned was continually laboring to poison our other preachers’ See Journal, iii. 535.]

‘He represents them,’ you say, ‘in the blackest colors; yet declares in the main they are some of the best people in the world. His love and esteem for them increases more and more. His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds. But still Methodism is the strongest barrier against the Moravian doctrines and principles.’ Sir, I bear you witness you have learned one principle at least from those with whom you have lately conversed -- namely, that no faith is to be kept with heretics; of which you have given us abundant proof. For you know I have fully answered every article of this charge, which you repeat as if I had not opened my lips about it. You know that there is not one grain of truth in several things which you here positively assert. For instance: ‘His love and esteem of them increases more and more.’ Not so; no more than my love and esteem for you. I love you both; but I do not much esteem either. Again: ‘His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds.’ When Where I know not that ten of my disciples, as you call them, have gone over to them for twice ten months. O sir, consider! How do you know but some of your disciples may tell your name 17. With the same veracity you go on: ‘In the Character of a Methodist those of the sect are described as having all the virtues that can adorn the Christian profession. But in their Journals you find them waspish, condemning all the world except themselves; and among themselves perpetual broils and confusions, with various other irregularities and vices.’ I answer: (1) The tract you refer to (as is expressly declared in the Preface) does not describe what the Methodists are already; but what they desire to be, and what they will be then when they fully practice the doctrine they hear. (2) Be pleased to point the pages in my Journals which mention those ‘various irregularities and vices.’ Of their ‘perpetual broils and confusions’ I shall speak under their proper head.

You add: ‘Sometimes they are so far from fearing death that they wish it. But the keenness of the edge is soon blunted. They are full of dreadful apprehensions that the clergy intend to murder them.’ Do, you mean me, sir I plead, Not guilty. I never had any such apprehension. Yet I suppose you designed the compliment for me by your dragging in two or three broken sentences from my First Journal. But how little to the purpose, seeing at the time that was written I had never pretended to be above the fear of death. So that this is no proof of the point in view -- of the ‘unsteadiness of my sentiments or practice.’ 18. You proceed: ‘One day they fancy it their duty to preach; the next they preach with great reluctance.’ Very true! But they fancy it their duty still, else they would not preach at all. This, therefore, does not prove any inequality either of sentiment or practice. ‘Mr. Wesley is sometimes quite averse from speaking, and then perplexed with the doubt, Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit, or a temptation from nature or the evil one’ Just of a piece with the rest. The sentence runs thus: ‘I went several times with a design to speak to the sailors, but could not. I mean, I was quite averse from speaking. Is not this what men commonly mean by “I could not speak” And is this a sufficient cause of silence or no Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit, or a temptation from nature or the evil one’ Sir, I was in no doubt at all on the occasion. Nor did I intend to express any in these words; but to appeal to men’s conscience whether what they call ‘a prohibition from the good Spirit’ be not a mere ‘temptation from nature or the evil one.’ 19. In the next section you are to show ‘the art, cunning, and sophistry of the Methodists, who, when hard pressed by argument, run themselves into inconsistency and self-contradiction, and occasionally either defend or give up some of their favorite notions and principal points’ (sect. xii. p. 102). I dare say, sir, you will not put them to the trial. Argument lies out of the way of one solufos

Qui captat risus hominum, farnamque dicacis. [Horace's Satires, I. iv. 82-3: ‘One that affects the droll, and loves to raise a home-laugh.’] But to the proof. ‘Mr. Wesley,’ you say, ‘at one time declares for a disinterested love of God; at another declares there is no one caution in all the Bible against the selfish love of God.’ Nay, sir; I will tell you what is stranger still: Mr. Wesley holds at one time both sides of this contradiction. I now declare both that ‘all true love is disinterested, “seeketh not her own,” and that there is no one caution in all the Bible against the selfish love of God.’ What, have I the art to slip out of your hands again ‘Pardon me,’ as your old friend says, ‘for being jocular.’ 20. You add, altius insurgens [Virgil's Aeneid, xi. 697: ‘Rising to more exalted strains.’]: ‘But it is a considerable offence to charge another wrongfully and contradict himself about the doctrine of Assurance.’ To prove this upon me you bring my own words: ‘The assurance we preach is of quite another kind from that Mr. Bedford writes against. We speak of an assurance of our present pardon; not, as he does, of our final perseverance.’ (Journal, ii. 83.) ‘Mr. Wesley might have considered,’ you say, ‘that, when they talk of “assurance of pardon and salvation,” the world will extend the meaning of the words to our eternal state.’ I do consider it, sir; and therefore I never use that phrase either in preaching or writing. ‘Assurance of pardon and salvation’ is an expression that never comes out of my lips; and if Mr. Whitefield does use it, yet he does not preach such an assurance as the privilege of all Christians. ‘But Mr. Wesley himself says, that “though a full assurance of faith does not necessarily imply a full assurance of our future perseverance, yet some have both the one and the other.” And now what becomes of his charge against Mr. Bedford And is it not mere evasion to say afterwards, “This is not properly an assurance of what is future”’ Sir, this argument presses me very hard! May I not be allowed a little evasion now Come, for once I will try to do without it, and to answer flat and plain.

And I answer: (1) That faith is one thing, the full assurance of faith another. (2) That even the full assurance of faith does not imply the full assurance of perseverance: this bears another name, being styled by St. Paul ‘the full assurance of hope.’ (3) Some Christians have only the first of these; they have faith, but mixed with doubts and fears. Some have also the full assurance of faith, a full conviction of present pardon; and yet not the full assurance of hope, not a full conviction of their future perseverance. (4) The faith which we preach as necessary to all Christians is the first of these, and no other. Therefore (5) It is no evasion at all to say, ‘This (the faith which we preach as necessary to all Christians) is not properly an assurance of what is future.’ And consequently my charge against Mr. Bedford stands good--that his sermon on Assurance is an ignoratio elenchi, an ‘ignorance of the point in question,’ from beginning to end. [See letter of Sept. 28, 1738.] Therefore neither do I ‘charge another wrongfully, nor contradict myself about the doctrine of Assurances.’ 21. To prove my art, cunning, and evasion, you instance next in the case of impulses and impressions. You begin: ‘With what pertinacious confidence have impulses, impressions, feelings, &c., been advanced into certain rules of conduct! Their followers have been taught to depend upon them as sure guides and infallible proofs.’ To support this weighty charge, you bring one single scrap, about a line and a quarter, from one of my Journals. The words are these: ‘By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced.’ Convinced of what It immediately follows: ‘Of unbelief, having no such faith as will prevent my heart from being troubled.’ I here assert that inward feeling or consciousness is the most infallible of proofs of unbelief -- of the want of such a faith as will prevent the heart’s being troubled. But do I here ‘advance impressions, impulses, feelings, &c., into certain rules of conduct’ or anywhere else You may just as well say I advance them into certain proofs of transubstantiation. Neither in writing, in preaching, nor in private conversation have I ever ‘taught any of my followers to depend upon them as sure guides or infallible proofs’ of anything.

‘It is well if the genuine religion of Christ has any more alliance with what you call religion than with the Turkish pilgrimages to Mecca or the Popish worship of Our Lady of Loretto. Have not you substituted in the place of the religion of the heart something, I do not say equally sinful, but equally vain and foreign to the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth What else can be said even of prayer, public or private, in the manner wherein you generally perform it as a thing of course, running round and round, in the same dull track, without either the knowledge or the love of God, without one heavenly temper, either attained or improved ' [Works, viii. 202.] Now, sir, what room is there for your own exclamations - ‘What sort of heavenly temper is his How can he possibly, consistently with charity, call this our general performance’ Sir, I do not. I only appeal to the conscience of you and each particular reader whether this is or is not the manner wherein you (in the singular number) generally perform public or private prayer. ‘How possibly, without being omniscient, can he affirm that we (I presume you mean all the members of our Church) pray without one heavenly temper or know anything at all of our private devotions How monstrous is all this!’ Recollect yourself, sir. If your terror is real, you are more afraid than hurt. I do not affirm any such thing. I do not take upon me to know anything at all of your private devotions. But I suppose I may inquire without offence, and beg you seriously to examine yourself before God. So you have brought no one proof that ‘skepticism, infidelity, and Atheism are either constituent parts or genuine consequences of Methodism.’ Therefore your florid declamation in the following pages is entirely out of its place. And you might have spared yourself the trouble of accounting for what has no being but in your own imagination. 27. You charge the Methodists next with ‘an uncharitable spirit’ (sect. xv. p. I15, &c.). All you advance in proof of this, as if it were from my writings, but without naming either page or book, I have nothing to do with. But whatever you tell me where to find I shall carefully consider.

Sir, has your passion quite extinguished your reason Have fierceness and rancor left you no understanding Otherwise, how is it possible you should run on at this senseless, shameless rate These things are true which Mr. Whitefield and Wesley object to each other. He holds the decrees; I do not: yet this does not prove us ‘detestable sectarists.’ And whether these things are true or false, your allegation of our ‘fierce and rancorous quarrels and mutual heinous accusations’ cannot stand good without better proof than you have yet produced. 34. Yet, with the utmost confidence, quasi re bene gesta, [‘As though you had accomplished some mighty affair.’] you proceed: ‘And how stands the matter among their disciples They are altogether by the ears, embroiled and broken with unchristian quarrels and confusions.’ How do you prove this Why thus: ‘Mr. Wesley's Fourth Journal is mostly taken up in enumerating their wrath, dissensions, and apostasies.’ No, sir, not a tenth part of it; although it gives a full and explicit account of the greatest dissensions which ever were among them. But to come to particulars, You first cite these words: ‘At Oxford, but a few who had not forsaken them.’ My words are: ‘Monday, October 1, 1739. I rode to Oxford; and found a few who had not yet forsaken the assembling themselves together.’ This is your first proof that ‘the Methodists are all together by the ears.’ Your second is its very twin brother: ‘Tuesday, 2. I went to many who once heard the word with joy; but “when the sun arose, they withered away.” ‘ (ii. 283-4.) Your third is this: ‘Many were induced (by the Moravians) to deny the gift of God, and affirm they never had any faith at all’ (ii. 315). You are at liberty to enjoy this argument also; and let it prove what it can prove. You, fourthly, cite these words: ‘Many of our sisters are shaken, grievously torn by reasonings. But few come to Fetter Lane, and then after their names are called over they presently depart. Our brethren here (those who were proselytes to the Moravians) have neither wisdom enough to guide nor prudence enough to let it alone. They (the Moravians) have much confounded some of our sisters, and many of our brothers are much grieved.’ (ii. 326-7.)

I have now weighed every argument you have brought to prove that the ‘Methodists undermine morality and good works.’ A grievous charge indeed! But the more inexcusable is he who advances it but is not able to make it good in any one single instance. Pardon my pertness, sir, in not barely affirming (that is your manner) but proving this; nay, and in telling you that you cannot make amends to God, to me, or to the world without a retractation as public as your calumny. 42. You add: ‘How the case stands, in fact, as to the number of converts among the Methodists and real reformation of life to the certain and known duties of the gospel is matter of difficult determination.’ Not at all. What is easier to be determined than (1) that A. B., of Exeter, or Tiverton, was for many years a notorious drunkard, common swearer, or Sabbath-breaker (2) that he is not so now; that he is really reformed from drunkenness, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, to sobriety and the other certain and known duties of the gospel ‘But from what inquiry’ you ‘can make there is no reason to think them, for the generality, better than their neighbors.’ ‘Better than their neighbors’ I Why, are they no worse than their neighbors’ Then, what have you been doing all this time But, whether they are better or worse than their neighbors, they are undeniably better than themselves: I mean, better than they were before they heard this preaching 'in the certain and known duties of the gospel.’ But you desire us to 'consider their black art of calumny; their uncharitableness; their excessive pride and vanity; their skepticism, doubts, and disbelief of God and Christ; their disorderly practices and contempt of authority; their bitter envying and inveterate broils among themselves; their coolness for good works.' Sir, we will consider all these when you have proved them. Till then this is mere brutum fulmen. 43. You proceed: ‘If we take Mr. Wesley's own account, it falls very short of any considerable reformation.’ You mean, if we take that part of his account which you are pleased to transcribe. Atticam elegantiam! But let any impartial man read my whole account, and then judge. However, hence you infer that ‘the new reformers have made but a slow and slight progress in the reformation of manners.’

You graciously say: ‘I do not lay much stress upon the charge of some of the angry Moravians against Mr. Wesley and brother for preaching Popery.’ Sir, if you had, you would only have hurt yourself. For (1) the Moravians never, that I know of, brought this charge at all; (2) when Mr. Cennick and two other Predestinarians (these were the persons) affirmed they had heard both my brother and me preach Popery, they meant neither more nor less thereby than the doctrine of Universal Redemption. ‘Some connection between the doctrines of Methodists and Papists hath been shown through this whole Comparison.’ Shown! But how By the same art of wire-drawing and deciphering which would prove an equal connection between the Methodists and Mahometans. ‘Jesuits have often mingled and been the ringleaders among our enthusiastic sectaries.’ Sir, I am greatly obliged to you for your compliment, as well as for your parallel of Mr. Faithful Commin. [A Dominican friar examined in 1567 before Queen Elizabeth and Archbishop Parker. He escaped to Rome, and received 2,000 ducals from the Pope for his good service. See The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared, i. 133.] And pray, sir, at what time do you think it was that I first mingled with those enthusiastic sectaries when I came back from Germany, or when I returned from Georgia, or while I was at Lincoln College Although the plot itself might be laid before, when I was at Christ Church or at the Charterhouse School. But ‘a Jesuit’s or enthusiast’s declaring against Popery is no test of their sincerity.’ Most sure: nor is a nameless person's declaring against Methodism any proof that he is not a Jesuit. I remember well, when a well-dressed man, taking his stand not far from Moor fields, had gathered a large company, and was vehemently asserting that ‘those rogues the Methodists were all Papists,’ till a gentleman coming by fixed his eye on him, and cried, ‘Stop that man! I know him personally: he is a Romish priest.’ I know not that anything remains on this head which bears so much as the face of an argument. So that, of all the charges you have brought (and truly you have not been sparing), there is not one wherein your proof falls more miserably short than in this -- that ‘the Methodists are advancing Popery.’

‘On Saturday, August 25, 1750, Mr. Trembath of St. Gennys, Mr. Haime of Shaftesbury, and I called at Mr. Morgan's at Mitchell. The servant telling me her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the “honest, sensible woman.” I immediately asked, “Did I ever tell you or your husband that you would be damned if you took any money of me” (So the story ran in the First Part of the Comparison; it has now undergone a very considerable alteration.) “Or did you or he ever affirm” (another circumstance related at Truro) “that I was rude with your maid” She replied vehemently, "Sir, I never said you was or that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But we have been belied as well as our neighbors.” She added: “When the Bishop came down last, he sent us word he would dine at our house; but he did not, bring invited to a neighboring gentleman’s. He sent for me thither, and said, Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down Do you know Mr. Wesley Did not he tell you you would be damned if you took any money of him And did not he offer rudeness to your maid I told him, No, my Lord; he never said any such thug to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him; but a man told me once (who, I was told was a Methodist preacher) that I should be damned if I did not know my sins were forgiven.”’ Your Lordship replies: ‘I neither sent word that I would dine at their house, nor did I send for Mrs. Morgan; every word that passed between us was at her own house at Mitchell’ (page 7). I believe it; and consequently that the want of exactness in this print rests on Mrs. Morgan, not on your Lordship.

To Ebenezer Blackwell Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1753) Author: John Wesley --- LONDON June. 27 1753. DEAR SIR, -- Your speaking so freely lays me under a new obligation of speaking without any reserve. And the rather because you receive what is spoken in the manner which I desire -- that is, not so much regarding the person who speaks as the thing which is spoken. If there is truth and weight in this, let it stand; if not, let it fall to the ground. Some time since, I was considering what you said concerning our wanting a plan in our Societies. There is a good deal of truth in this remark; for although we have a plan as to our spiritual economy (the several branches of which are particularly recited in the Plain Account of the People called Methodists [See letter in Dec. 1748 to Vincent Perronet.]), yet it is certain we have barely the first outlines of a plan with regard to temporals. The reason is, I had no design for several years to concern myself with temporals at all. And when I began to do this, it was wholly and solely with a view to relieve not employ the poor, unless now and then with respect to a small number; and even this I found was too great a burthen for me, as requiring both more money, more time, and more thought than I could possibly spare: I say, than I could spare; for the whole weight laid on me. If I left it to others, it surely came to nothing. They wanted either understanding, or industry, or love, or patience to bring anything to perfection. Thus far I thought it needful to explain myself with regard to the economy of our Society. I am still to speak of your case, of my own, and of some who are dependent on me. I do not recollect (for I kept no copy of my last) that I charged you with want of humility or meekness. Doubtless these may be found in the most splendid palaces. But did they ever move a man to build a splendid palace Upon what motive you did this I know not; but you are to answer it to God, not to me.

If your soul is now as much alive to God, if your thirst after pardon and holiness is as strong, if you are as dead to the desire of the eye and the pride of life as you was six or seven years ago, I rejoice; if not, I pray God you may. And then you will know how to value a real friend. With regard to myself, you do well to warn me against ‘popularity, a thirst of power and of applause, against envy producing a seeming contempt for the conveniences or grandeur of this life, against an affected humility, against sparing from myself to give to others from no other motive than ostentation.’ I am not conscious to myself that this is my case. However, the warning is always friendly, and it is always seasonable, considering how deceitful my heart is and how many the enemies that surround me. What follows I do not understand. ‘Your beholding me in the ditch wherein you helped (though involuntarily) to cast me, and with a Levitical pity passing by on the other side’; ‘He (who) and you, sir, have not any merit; though Providence should permit all these sufferings to work together for my good.’ I do not comprehend one fine of this, and therefore cannot plead either guilty or not guilty. I presume they are some that are dependent on me, who (you say) ‘keep not the commandments of God; who show a repugnance to serve and obey; who are as full of pride and arrogance as of filth and of nastiness; who do not pay lawful debts, nor comply with civil obligations; who make the waiting on the offices of religion a plea for sloth and idleness; who, after I had strongly recommended them, did not perform their moral duty, but increased the number of those encumbrances, which they forced on you against your will.’ To this I can only say (1) I know not whom you mean. I am not certain that I can so much as guess one of them. (2) Whoever they are, had they followed my instructions they would have acted in a quite different manner. (3) If you will tell me them by name who have acted thus, I will renounce all fellow-ship with them. [See letters of May 16 and 28 to him.]

Dear sir, for the time to come (if you choose we should convene at all) let us convene with absolute openness and unreserve. Then you will find and know me to be Your very affectionate friend and servant.

Now I have nether more nor less faith in human testimony than I had ten or fifteen years ago. I could suspect every man that speaks to me to be either a blunderer or a liar But I will not. I dare not till I have proof. I give you a dilemma. Take one side or the other. Either act really in connection with me, or never pretend to it. Rather disclaim it, and openly avow you do and will not. By acting in connection with me, I mean take counsel with me once or twice a year as to the places where you will labor. Hear my advice before you fix whether you take it or no. At present you are so far from this that I do not even know when and where you intend to go; so far are you from following any advice of mine -- nay, even from asking it. And yet I may say without vanity that I am a better judge of this matter than either Lady Huntingdon, Sally, [Charles wrote his wife in the autumn of 1753: ‘The more heavily I labor in the vineyard, the longer I shag continue with you.’ See Telford’s Charles Wesley, pp. 195-6.] Jones [John Jones. See letter of April 16 1748.], or any other -- nay, than your own heart, that is will. I wish you all peace, zeal, and love.

To Ebenezer Blackwell Date: BRISTOL September 24, 1754. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1754) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- Although I hope to see you in about a fortnight, yet I could not be satisfied without sending you a few lines first. Since I left London I have had many thoughts concerning you, and sometimes uneasy ones. I have been jealous over you, lest you should not duly improve the numerous talents with which God has entrusted you; nay, I have been afraid lest your very desire of improving them should grow weaker rather than stronger. If so, by what means is it to be accounted for What has occasioned this feebleness of mind May it not partly be occasioned by your conversing more than is necessary (for so far as it is necessary it does not hurt us) with men that are without God in the world -- that love, think, talk of earthly things only partly by your giving way to a false shame (and that in several instances), which, the more you indulge it, increases the more and partly by allowing too large a place in your thoughts and affections even to so innocent an enjoyment as that of a garden If this leaves you fewer opportunities of hearing that word which is able to save your soul, may not you even hereby grieve the Holy Spirit and be more a loser than you are sensible of I know both Mrs. Blackwell and you desire to please God in all things. You will therefore, I know, receive these hints as they are intended -- not as a mark of disesteem, but rather of the sincerity with which I am, dear sir, Your ever affectionate servant.

But enough of this. Let us draw the saw no longer, but use all our talents to promote the mind that was in Christ. ‘Not yet’ is rotary out of the question. We have not one preacher who either proposed or desires or designs (that I know) to separate from the Church ‘at all.’ Their principles (in the single point of ordination) I do not approve. But I pray for more and more of their spirit (in general) and their practice. I have talked with Mr. Graves, [Charles Caspar Graves one of Charles Wesley's clerical friends, whom he describes in 1739 as ‘thoroughly awakened.’ See Journal, iii. 40-2; C. Wesley's Journal, i. 160, 422.] and shall do again. Driving me may make me fluctuate; though I do not yet. ‘When the preachers in Ireland set up for themselves, must you not disown them’ I answer ‘When.’ I thought you said my sister expected to lie in in May; now it is the end of June. [Martha Maria, their second child, was born on June 23, but lived only a month and two days.] If you can go to Cornwall in the end of July, it is soon enough. I wish you-would see each of the country Societies; and why not New Kingswood too Adieu. [Note at back: ‘Robert Windsor. Given to Chas. He set out for Norwich on Monday.’]

To Richard Tompson Date: LONDON July 25, 1755. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1755) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- It would be a pleasure to me to write more largely than my time will now permit. Of all the disputants I have known, you are the most likely to convince me of any mistakes I may be in, because you have found out the great secret of speaking the truth in love. When it is thus proposed, it must surely win its way into every heart which is not purposely shut against it. That you may deafly see wherein we agree or wherein we differ, I have sent you the Minutes of some of our late Conferences. Several concessions are made therein, both with regard to Assurance and Christian Perfection; some difficulties cleared, and a few arguments proposed, though very nakedly and briefly. When you have read these, you may come directly to any point of controversy which may still remain; and ff you can show me that any farther concessions are needful, I shall make them with great pleasure. On the subject of your last I can but just observe, first, with regard to the assurance of faith, I apprehend that the whole Christian Church in the first centuries enjoyed it. For though we have few points of doctrine explicitly taught in the small remains of the ante-Nicene Fathers, yet I think none that carefully reads Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen, or any other of them, can doubt whether either the writer himself possessed it or all whom he mentions as real Christians. And I ready conceive, both from the Harrnonia Confessionurn and whatever else I have occasionally read, that all the Reformed Churches in Europe did once believe ‘Every true Christian has the divine evidence of his being in favor with God.’ So much for authority. The point of experience is touched upon in the Conferences. As to the nature of the thing, I think a divine conviction of pardon is directly implied in the evidence or conviction of things unseen. But if not, it is no absurdity to suppose that, when God pardons a mourning, broken-hearted sinner, His mercy obliges Him to another act -- to witness to his spirit that He has pardoned him.

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.

To Samuel Furly Date: BRISTOL September 25, 1755. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1755) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It fell out extremely well that I received yours just as I was writing to York. So I have desired one to inquire when that young gentleman is to enter Cambridge. [Probably young Mr. Drake. See Journal, iv. 18-19; and letter of Nov. 20 1756, also Nov. 26, 1762.] What I want of you h to be always steady, always consistent with yourself, to follow divinity, and to beware of worldly wisdom, in which many Methodists abound, though they know it not. -- I am Your affectionate brother.

Those among ourselves who have been in doubt whether they ought so to beware of these false prophets as not to hear them at all are not men of a ‘forward uncharitable zeal’ but of a calm, loving, temperate spirit. They are perfectly easy as to their own call to preach; but they are troubled for those poor uncaged, blind guides. And they are sometimes afraid that the countenancing these is a dead weight even on those clergymen who are ready called of God. ‘Why else,’ say they, ‘does not God bless their labors Why do they still stretch forth their hands in vain ‘We know Mr. Piers, Perone, Manning, and several regular clergymen who do preach the genuine gospel, but to no effect at all. There is one exception in England -- Mr. Walker at Truro. We do not know one more who has converted one soul in his own parish. If it be said, ‘Has not Mr. Grimshaw and Mr. Baddeley [John Baddeley, Rector of Hayfield in Derbyshire, was converted in 1748 and ‘preaches the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.’ He was ‘a sort of second Grimshaw.’ He formed. Societies, and appointed laymen to assist him. Wesley visited him in April 1755; and after the Leeds Conference, Baddeley wrote him an affectionate letter about separation from the Church of England. See Journal, iv. 110-11, v. 109; Arminian Mag. 1779 p. 319; Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 195. For William Grimshaw, see letter of Nov. 2, 1748.] No, not one, till they were irregular -- till both the one and the other formed irregular Societies and took in laymen to assist them. Can there be a stronger proof that God is pleased with irregular even more than with regular preaching ‘But might not the Methodists in general serve the interests of Christ better as witnesses and examples of a living faith by returning to a closer union with the Church than by separating still farther’ We have no design at present of separating father (if we have yet separated at all). Neither dare we return to a closer union, if that means either prohibiting lay preachers or ceasing to watch over each other in love, and regularly meeting for that purpose.

‘The materiality of the angelic kingdom was spiritual’ (Part II. p. 27). What is spiritual materiality Is it not much the same with immaterial materiality ‘This spiritual materiality brought forth the heavenly flesh and blood of angels’ (page 57). That angels have bodies you affirm elsewhere. But are you sure they have flesh and blood Are not the angels spirits And surely a spirit hath not flesh and blood. ‘The whole glassy sea was a mirror of beauteous forms, colors, and sounds, perpetually springing up, having also fruits and vegetables, but not gross, as the fruits of the world. This was continually bringing forth new figures of life; not animals, but ideal forms of the endless divisibility of life.' (Part I. pp. 18-19.) This likewise is put into the mouth of God. But is nonsense from the Most High What less is ‘a mirror of beauteous sounds’ And what are ‘figures of life’ Are they alive or dead, or between both, as a man may be between sleeping and waking What are ‘ideal forms of the endless divisibility of life’ Are they the same with those forms of stones, one of which Maraton took up (while he was seeking Yaratilda) to throw at the form of a lion [See Spectator, No. 56, May 4, 1711, where Addison describes the Indian visionary's adventures in an underworld of unrealities.] ‘The glassy sea being become thick and dark, the spirit converted its fire and wrath into sun and stars, its dross and darkness into earth, its mobility into air, its moisture into water’ (Part II. p. 29). Was wrath converted into sun or stars, or a little of it bestowed on both How was darkness turned into earth or mobility into air Has not fire more mobility than this Did there need omnipotence to convert fire into fire, into the sun, or moisture into water ‘Darkness was absolutely unknown to the angels till they fell. Hence it appears that darkness is the ground of the materiality of nature.’ (Page 33.) Appears -- to whom Nothing appears to me but the proving ignoturn per ignotius.

‘All life is a desire’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 198). ‘Every desire as such is and must be made up of contrariety. God's bringing a sensible creature into existence is the bringing the power of desire into a creaturely state.’ (Ibid.) Does not all this require a little more proof, and not a little illustration ‘Hard and soft, thick and thin, could have no existence till nature lost its first purity. And this is the one true origin of all the materiality of this world. Else nothing thick or hard could ever have been.’ (Part I. p. 21.) Does not this call for much proof since most people believe God created matter, merely because so it seemed good in His sight. But you add a kind of proof. ‘How comes a flint to be so hard and dark It is because the meekness and fluidity of the light, air, and water are not in it.’ (Ibid.) The meekness of light and air and water! What is that Is air or water capable of virtue ‘The first property of nature is a constraining, attracting, and coagulating power’ (page 24). I wait the proof of this. ‘God brought gross matter out of the sinful properties of nature, that thereby the fallen angels might lose all their power over them’ (page 27). And have they lost all power over them Is Satan no longer prince of the power of the air ‘As all matter is owing to the first property of nature, which is an astringing, compressing desire’ (page 28). Stop here, sir. I totally deny that any unintelligent being is capable of any desire at all. And yet this gross, capital mistake runs through your whole theory. ‘The fourth property is fire’ (page 49). Where is the proof ‘Which changes the properties of nature into an heavenly state’ (page 48). Proof again ‘The conjunction of God and nature brings forth fire.’ This needs the most proof of all. ‘Every right-kindled fire must give forth light.’ Why ‘Because the eternal fire is the effect of supernatural light.’ Nay, then light should rather give forth fire. ‘The fire of the soul and that of the body has but one nature’ (page 52). Can either Behmen or Spinosa prove this 3. Of Adam in paradise.

‘Adam was created to keep what is called the curse covered and overcome by paradise. And as paradise concealed and overcame all the evil in the elements, so Adam's heavenly man concealed from him all the evil of the earthly nature that was under it.’ (Page 62.) Can we believe that there was any evil in man from the creation, if we believe the Bible ‘Our own good spirit is the very Spirit of God; and yet not God, but the Spirit of God kindled into a creaturely form.’ Is there any meaning in these words And how are they consistent with those that follow ‘This spirit is so related to God as my breath is to the air’ (page 195). Nay, if so, your spirit is God; for your breath is air. ‘That Adam had at first the nature of an angel is plain from hence, that he was both male and female in one person. Now, this (the being both male and female) is the very perfection of the angelic nature.’ (Page 65.) Naturalists say that snails have this perfection. But who can prove that angels have You attempt to prove it thus: ‘“In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.” Here we are told (1) that the being male and female in one person is the very nature of angels: (2) that man shall be so too at the resurrection; therefore he was so at first.’ (Page 66.) Indeed, we are not told here that angels are hermaphrodites -- no, nor anything like it. The whole passage is: ‘They who are accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels’ (Luke xx. 35-6): namely, not in being male and female, but in this -- that they ‘cannot die any more.’ This is the indisputable meaning of the words. So this whole proof vanishes into air. You have one more thought full as new as this: ‘All earthly beasts are but creaturely eruptions of the disorder that is broken out from the fallen spiritual world. So earthly serpents are but transitory out-births of covetousness, envy, pride, and wrath.’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 207.)

Why could not God do this Because ‘body and spirit are not two separate things, but are only the inward and outward condition of one and the same being. Every creature must have its own body, and cannot be without it. For its body is that’ (Who would have thought it!) ‘which makes it manifest to itself. It cannot know either that it is or what it is but by its own body!' (Page 32.) What a heap of bold assertions is here to curb Omnipotence! And not one of them has a tittle of proof, unless one can prove the other! But we have more still: ‘The body of any creature has nothing of its own, but is solely the outward manifestation of that which is inwardly in the soul. Every animal has nothing in its outward form or shape but that which is the form and growth of its spirit. As no number can be anything else but that which the units contained in it make it to be, so no body can be anything else but the coagulation or sum total of those properties of nature that are coagulated in it.’ (Page 33.) Astonishing! What a discovery is this, that a body is only a curdled spirit! that our bodies are only the sum total of our spiritual properties! and that the form of every man's body is only the form of his spirit made visible! ‘Every spirit manifests its own nature by that body which proceeds from it as its own birth’ (Part II. p. 17). Does the body, then, grow out of the spirit as the hair and nails grow out of the body, and this in consequence of the ‘powers of nature’ distinct from the power and will of God To abridge God of His power, after creation as well as before it, you affirm, farther,--

I have dwelt the longer on this head because of its inexpressible moment. For whether or no the doctrine of Justification by Faith be, as all Protestants thought at the time of the Reformation, articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae, ‘a doctrine without which there can be no Christian Church,’ most certainly there can be none where the whole notion of justification is ridiculed and exploded, unless it be such a church as includes, according to your account, every child of man, of which, consequently, Turks, Deists, and Pagans are as real members as the most pious Christian under the sun. I cannot but observe that this is the very essence of Deism: no serious infidel need contend for more. I would therefore no more set one of this opinion to convert Deists than I would set a Turk to convert Mahometans. 4. As every one that is justified is born of God, I am naturally led to consider, in the next place (so far as it is delivered in the tracts now before us), your doctrine of the New Birth. ‘In the day that Adam ate of the tree he died -- that is, his heavenly spirit with its heavenly body were extinguished. To make that heavenly spirit and body to be alive again in man, this is regeneration’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 9). Oh no, this is not, nor anything like it. This is the unscriptural dream of Behmen's heated imagination. ‘See the true reason why only the Son of God could be our Redeemer. It is because He alone could be able to bring to life again that celestial spirit and body which had died in Adam.’ (Ibid.) Not so; but He alone could be our Redeemer because He alone, ‘by that one oblation of Himself once offered,’ could make ‘a sufficient sacrifice and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.’ ‘See also why a man must “be born again of water and of the Spirit.” He must be born again of the Spirit because Adam’s heavenly spirit was lost.’ (Ibid.) Nay, but because Adam had lost the inward image of God wherein he was created. And no less than the almighty Spirit of God could renew that image in his soul.

There is abundantly greater danger of this when we fancy we have no longer need to ‘be taught of man.’ To this your late writings directly lead. One who admires them will be very apt to cry out, ‘I have found all that I need know of God, of Christ, of myself, of heaven, of hell, of sin, of grace, and of salvation’ (Part 114 p. 4). And the rather because you yourself affirm roundly, ‘When once we apprehend the all of God and our own nothingness’ (which a man may persuade himself he does in less than four-and-twenty hours), ‘it brings a kind of infallibility into the soul in which it dwells; all that is vain and false and deceitful is forced to vanish and fly before it' (Part I. p. 95). Agreeably to which you tell your convert, ‘You have no questions to ask of anybody’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 218). And if, notwithstanding this, he will ask, ‘But how am I to keep up the flame of love’ you answer, ‘I wonder you should want to know this. Does a blind or sick or lame man want to know how he should desire sight, health, or limbs’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part II. p. 165.) No; but he wants to know how he should attain and how he should keep them. And he who has attained the love of God may still want to know how he shall keep it. And he may still inquire, ‘May I not take my own passions or the suggestions of evil spirits for the workings of the Spirit of God’ (page 198). To this you answer, ‘Every man knows when he is governed by the spirit of wrath, envy, or covetousness as easily and as certainly as he knows when he is hungry’ (ibid.). Indeed he does not; neither as easily nor as certainly. Without great care he may take wrath to be pious zeal, envy to be virtuous emulation, and covetousness to be Christian prudence or laudable frugality. ‘Now, the knowledge of the Spirit of God in yourself is as perceptible as covetousness.’ Perhaps so; for this is as difficultly perceptible as any temper of the human soul. ‘And liable to no more delusion.’ Indeed it need not; for this is liable to ten thousand delusions.

This is right pleasing to flesh and blood; and I could most easily believe it if I did not believe the Bible. But that teaches me inwardly to worship God, as at all times and in all places, so particularly on His own day, in the congregation of His people, at His altar, and by the ministry of those His servants whom He hath given for this very thing, ‘for the perfecting of the saints,’ and with whom He will be to the end of the world. Extremely dangerous, therefore, is this other gospel, which leads quite wide of the gospel of Christ. And what must the consequence be if we thus ‘break,’ yea, ‘and teach men so,’ not ‘one’ only, neither ‘the least,’ of ‘His commandments’ Even that we ‘shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.’ God grant this may not fall on you or me! 7. However, whether we have a place in heaven or not, you are very sure we shall have none in hell. For there is no hell in rerum natura, ‘no such place in the universe.’ You declare this over and over again in great variety of expressions. It may suffice to mention two or three: ‘Hell is no penalty prepared or inflicted by God’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part II. p. 33). ‘Damnation is only that which springs up within you’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 47). ‘Hell and damnation are nothing but the various operations of self’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 79). I rather incline to the account published a few years ago by a wise and pious man (the late Bishop of Cork [Dr. Peter Browne's Procedure (or Progress), Extent, and Limits of Human Understanding, pp. See letter of Feb. 18, 1756, to Samuel Furly.]), where he is speaking of the improvement of human knowledge by revelation. Some of his words are,--

To Richard Tompson Date: LONDON, February 5, 1756. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1756) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- I was in Cornwall when your last was brought to the Foundry and delivered to my brother. When I returned, it was mislaid and could not be found; so that I did not receive it till some months after the date. You judge right with regard to the tract [The Address to the Clergy. Probably intended for the Rev. George Thompson Vicar of St. Gennys.] enclosed to you. It was sent to you by mistake for another that bears the same name. Christian perfection, we agree, may stand aside for the present. The point now to be considered is Christian faith. This, I apprehend, implies a divine evidence or conviction of our acceptance. You apprehend it does not. In debating this (or indeed any) point with you, I lie under a great disadvantage. (1) You know me; whereas I do not know you. (2) I am a very slow, you seem to be a very swift, writer. (3) My time is so taken up, from day to day and from week to week, that I can spare very little from my stated employments; so that I can neither write so largely nor so accurately as I might otherwise do. All, therefore, which you can expect from me is, not a close-wrought chain of connected arguments, but a short sketch of what I should deduce more at large if I had more leisure. I believe the ancient Fathers are far from being silent on our question; though none that I know have treated it professedly. But I have not leisure to wade through that sea. Only to the argument from the baptism of heretics I reply, If any had averred during that warm controversy, ‘I received a sense of pardon when I was baptized by such an heretic’ those on the other side would in no wise have believed him; so that the dispute would have remained as warm as ever. I know this from plain fact. Many have received a sense of pardon when I baptized them. But who will believe them when they assert it Who will put any dispute on this issue

I know likewise that Luther, Melanchthon, and many other (if not all) of the Reformers frequently and strongly assert that every believer is conscious of his own acceptance with God, and that by a supernatural evidence, which if any choose to term immediate revelation he may. But nether have I leisure to re-examine this cloud of witnesses. Nor, indeed, as you justly observe, would the testimony of them all together be sufficient to establish an unscriptural doctrine. Therefore, after all, we must be determined by higher evidence. And herein we are dearly agreed: we both appeal ‘to the law and to the testimony.’ May God enable us to understand it aright! But first, that you may not beat the air by disproving what I never intended to prove, I will show you as distinctly as I can what my sentiments are upon the question, and the rather because I plainly perceive you do not yet understand them. You seem to think I allow no degrees in grace, and that I make no distinction between the full assurance of faith and a low or common measure of it. Several years ago some clergymen and other gentlemen with whom we had a free conversation proposed the following questions to my brother and me, to which we gave the answers subjoined: -- ‘June 25, 1744. ‘QUESTION. What is faith ‘ANSWER. Faith in general is a divine, supernatural ‘e [‘Evidence’ or ‘conviction.’] of things not seen--that is, of past, future, or spiritual. It is a spiritual sight of God and the things of God. Justifying faith is a divine ‘e, that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. ‘Q. Have all Christians this faith And may not a man have it and not know it ‘A. That all Christians have such a faith as implies a consciousness of God’s love appears from Rom. viii. 15; Eph. iv. 32; 2 Cor. xiii. 5; Heb. viii. 10; 1 John iv. 10, v. 1, &c. And that no man can have it and not know that he has appears from the nature of the thing. For faith after repentance is ease after pain, rest after toil, light after darkness. It appears also from its immediate fruits, which are peace, joy, love, and power over sin. ‘Q. Does any one believe any longer than he sees, loves, obeys God

‘A. We apprehend not; “seeing God” being the very essence of faith, love and obedience the inseparable properties of it.’ ‘August 2, 1745. ‘QUESTION. Is an assurance of God’s pardoning love absolutely necessary to our being in His favor Or may there possibly be some exempt cases ‘ANSWER. We dare not positively say there are not. ‘Q. Is it necessary to final salvation in those (as Papists) who never heard it preached ‘A. We know not how far invincible ignorance may excuse. “Love hopeth all things.” ‘Q, But what if one who does hear it preached should die without it ‘A. We determine nothing. We leave his soul in the hands of Him that made it. ‘ Q. Does a man believe any longer than he sees a reconciled God ‘A. We conceive not. But we allow there may be very many degrees of seeing God, even as many as are between seeing the sun with the eyelids closed and with the eyes open.’ The doctrine which I espouse, till I receive farther light, being thus explained and limited, I observe, -- (1) A divine conviction of my being reconciled to God is, I think, directly implied, not in a divine evidence or conviction of something rise, but in a divine conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me, and still more clearly in the Spirit’s bearing witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. (2) I see no reason either to retract or soften the expression ‘God’s mercy in some cases obliges Him to act thus and thus.’ Certainly, as His own nature obliges Him (in a very clear and sound sense) to act according to truth and justice in all things; so in some sense His love obliged Him to give His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him might not perish. So much for the phrase. My meaning is, The same compassion which moves God to pardon a mourning, broken-hearted sinner moves Him to comfort that mourner by witnessing to his spirit that his sins are pardoned.

(3) You think ‘full assurance excludes all doubt.’ I think so too. But there may be faith without fun assurance. And these lower degrees of faith do not exclude doubts, which frequently mingle therewith, more or less. But this you cannot allow. You say it cannot be shaken without being overthrown; and trust I shall be ‘convinced upon reflection that the distinction between “shaken” and “destroyed” is absolutely without a difference.’ Hark! The wind rises: the house shakes, but it is not overthrown; it totters, but it is not destroyed. You add: ‘Assurance is quite a distinct thing from faith. Neither does it depend upon the same agent. Faith is an act of my mind; assurance an act of the Holy Ghost.’ I answer: (1) The assurance in question is no other than the full assurance of faith; therefore it cannot be a distinct thing from faith, but only so high a degree of faith as excludes all doubt and fear. (2) The plerophory, or full assurance, is doubtless wrought in us by the Holy Ghost. But so is every degree of true faith; yet the mind of man h the subject of both. I believe feebly; I believe without all doubt. Your next remark is: ‘The Spirit's witnessing that we are accepted cannot be the faith whereby we are accepted,’ I allow it. A conviction that we are justified cannot be implied in justifying faith. You subjoin: ‘A sure trust that God hath accepted me is not the same thing with knowing that God has accepted me.’ I think it is the same thing with some degree of that knowledge. But it matters not whether it be so or no. I will not contend for a term. I contend only for this -- that every true Christian believer has ‘a sure trust and confidence in God that through the merits of Christ he is reconciled to God’; and that in consequence of this he is able to say, ‘The life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.’

It is a very little thing to excuse a warm expression [In his letter of Feb. 25 'P. V.' says: ‘I hope sir, that I have not (in the course of my papers) been wanting in respect towards you; willingly, I am sure I have not: you do indeed intimate something concerning a warm expression, which I am entirely ignorant of; so hope you will excuse it.’] (if you need any such excuse) while I am convinced of your real goodwill to, sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake.

To Samuel Furly Date: LONDON, February 18, 1756. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1756) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, -- You are a very complaisant person. I know in my little circle of acquaintance more than twenty who have all the natural qualifications mentioned in the Address to the Clergy, and several others who have a~ the acquired ones, either by education or by grace; and I would engage to take any person of fourteen years of age who has good natural abilities and to teach him in seven years everything which is there required to a good degree of perfection. Ex pede Herculem. You may easily see what Latin I write by one of the Dissertations in Jobum, [By his father. See note to letter of Oct. 15, 1735.] or even by the short conversation with Count Zinzendorf which is printed in the Journal, [See Journal, ii. 488-90.] I do not know that I have any theme or declamation left. But why do you not talk Latin when you are with me Do this, and you will see the excellence of Terence’s language; whereas Tully would make you talk like a mere stiff pedant. Randal’s Geographical Grammar is far the best compendium of geography which I have seen; and you need nothing more on that subject, adding only the terrestrial globe.

To Richard Tompson Date: LONDON, February 18, 1756. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1756) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- You ask, 1. ‘Can a man who has not a clear assurance that his sins are forgiven be in a state of justification’ I believe there are some instances of it. 2. ‘Can a person be in a state of justification who, being asked, “Do you know your sins are forgiven’ answers, “I am not certainly sure; but I do not entertain the least doubt of it”’ I believe he may. 3. ‘Can he who answer “I trust they are”’ It is very possible he may be in that state. 4. ‘Can any one know that his sins are forgiven while he doubts thereof’ Not at the instant when he doubts of it. But he may generally know it, though he doubts at some particular time. I answer as plainly and simply as I can, that, if I am in a mistake, I may the more easily be convinced of it.

To his Wife Date: WAERFORD, May 7, 1756. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1756) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR MOLLY, -- From Portarlington we rode (twenty miles as they call it) in about eight hours to Kilkenny. There our brethren in the Army received us gladly and opened a door which none were able to shut. Yesterday in the afternoon (through heavy rain; but it was nothing to me) we came hither. Here is a poor, shattered Society, who have been for these seven years tearing one anther in pieces. What I shall be able to do with them I know not; but it is enough if I can deliver my own soul. On Monday I hope to be in Clonmell, and on Wednesday evening in Cork. From time to time, my love, you should tell me all you know concerning public affairs; for it is hard to depend on the authority of the newspapers for the truth of anything. If King George recovers, [George II lived till 1760. The future George III came of age on June 4, 1756.] I know there will be a lengthening of our tranquility. If God should take him away, for anything I see yet, I should quit this kingdom as soon as possible. In the meantime let you and I improve to-day. The morrow will take thought for the things of itself. [See letter of April 19.] Sister Cownley [See letter of Jan. 10.] sends her kindest love to you and Jenny. Is there something remarkable in her dream I have heard of several other uncommon notices which have been given to others in this kingdom. But I shall stay till I can see the Persons concerned and like the accounts from their own mouths. I dreamed last night that I was carried to execution and had but a few minutes to live. We had not been talking of anything of the kind over-night. What I gather hence is, While we live, let us live; that if we do not meet again here, we may in a better place -- My dear Molly, adieu! I have now yours of April 29. It is all in all to keep the issues of our heart, and by His strength we are able so to do. Draw us, and we will run after Thee!

Pay the printers yourself; that is the sure way, unless Jo. Spencer [See letters of Jan. 7, March 4, and June 18.] gives you his account as I have written. I hope H. Brown [Brown was apparently engaged at the Book-Room.] will do everything you bid him. Else you must send him home. I have wrote to Mr. Blackwell from Dublin. Peace be with your spirit!

But is it immoral It is immoral to think, speak, or act contrary to the love which ‘thinketh no evil.’ Now, of this both Charles and you are palpably guilty in thinking the body of the Methodists (either preachers or people) are fallen from the simplicity and uprightness of the gospel. Whatever seven or eight of the preachers may be who have warmly debated this point with you, whatever two or three hundred of the people may be who have been hurt by the disputants on either side, the main body of the Methodists never were more simple or upright than at this day. Therefore your thinking so ill of both preachers and people is a manifest breach of the law of love. And whoever is or is not fallen from the spirit of the gospel, it is certain you are for one. But after all this pother, what is the persecution concerning which you make so loud an outcry Why, some of our lay preachers did what we thought was both ill in itself and likely to do much harm among the people. Of this, complaint was made to me. And what did I do Did I expel those preachers out of our community Not so. Did I forbid them to preach any more Not so neither. Did I degrade them from itinerant to local preachers Net so much as this. I told them I thought the thing was wrong and would do hurt, and therefore advised them to do it no more. Certainly this is a new species of persecution! I cannot but think you might as well call it murder. ‘Oh, but you would have done more if they had persisted.’ That is, I would have persecuted. Whatever I would have done if things had been which were not, I have not done it yet. I have used no arbitrary, no coercive power -- nay, no power at all in this matter but that of love. I have given no man an ill word or an ill look on the account. I have not withdrawn my confidence or my conversation from any. I have dealt with every man as, if the tables were turned, I should desire he would deal with me.

‘But I would not dispute with you.’ Not for a time; not till your spirits were a little evaporated. But you argue too fast when you infer from hence that I myself cannot confute your favorite notion. You are not sure of that. But, come what will, you are resolved to try. Well, then, move fair and softly. You and Charles Perronet aver that you have a right to administer the Lord’s Supper, and that therefore you ought to administer it among the Methodists or to separate from them. If the assertion were proved, I should deny the consequence. But first, I desire proof of the assertion. Let him or you give the proof, only without any flourish or rhetorical amplifications (which exceedingly abound in all C. P.’s letters to my brother on this subject), and I will give you an answer, though we are not on even ground; for you have no business, and I have no leisure. And if you continue instant in prayer, particulady for a lowly and teachable spirit, I do not despair of your finding both that life and love which you have not lately enjoyed. -- I am Your affectionate brother I shall add a few remarks on C. P.’s letters, though the substance of them is contained in yours. ‘Some of the fundamentals of your constitution are wrong’ Our fundamentals are laid down in the Plain Account. Which of these are wrong, and yet ‘borne by you for eight years’ ‘Oh inconsistency! Oh excuseless tyranny!’ &c. Flourish. Set that down for nothing. ‘These very men who themselves break the laws of the State deny us liberty of conscience.’ In plain terms, These very men who preach the gospel contrary to law do not approve of our administering the sacraments. They do not. They greatly disapprove of it; and that without any inconsistency at all, because the case is not parallel. The one is absolutely necessary to the salvation of thousands; the other not. ‘Your brother has to the last refused me liberty of conscience.’ Under what penalty This heavy charge amounts in reality to this: I still think you have no fight to administer the Lord’s Supper; in consequence of which I advise you not to do it. Can I do less or have I done more

‘I wish I could say that anything of wicked lewdness would have met with the same opposition’! Is not this pretty, Brother Norton Do you subscribe to this I think you know us better. Do we not so much as advise our preachers and people to abstain from wicked lewdness ‘Can it be denied that known wantonness, that deceit and knavery have been among us, and that little notice has been taken of it ‘I totally deny it. Much notice has been taken, by me in particular, of what evil has been done by any preacher. I have constantly examined all the parties, and have in every instance so far animadverted on the delinquent as justice joined with mercy required. ‘My crime is that I would worship Christ as His word, His Spirit, and my own conscience teach me. Let God and man be witness that we part for this and nothing else.’ Namely, because I am of a different judgment, and cannot approve of what I judge to be wrong. So says W. Darney, ‘My crime is that I would preach Christ as His word, His Spirit, and my own conscience teach me.’ But he has fir more ground for complaint than you: for we ourselves separated him from us; whereas you call God and man to witness that you separate yourself for this and nothing else - that I cannot approve what I judge to be wrong. But this is not all your crime. You have also drank into the spirit of James Wheatley; and you have adopted his very language: you are become, like him, an accuser of your brethren. O Charles, it was time you should separate from them; for your heart was gone from them before! ‘Whatever motives of another kind might be blended with those that really belonged to your conscience, in your rejecting what I laid before you’ (not consenting that I should administer), ‘God knows.’ I know of none. I have no other motive of acting than the glory of God and the good of souls. Here again you are become not only an accuser but a false accuser and an unjust judge of your brother.

‘You grant more to others. To my certain knowledge both of you have been told for more than two years that James Morris [James Morris left Wesley in 1756. See Myles’s Chronological History; and for his share in the conversion of Toplady this year, Journal, v. 327-8n; Wright’s Life of Toplady, p. 18.] administered.’ You may as well say, ‘To my certain knowledge black is white.’ I was never told it to this, unless by C. Perronet. But whether he does or no, it is nothing to me. He never was in close connexion with us; he is now in no connexion at all. We have totally renounced him. So here is another instance of accusing, yea falsely accusing, your brethren. ‘A man may be circumcised, count his beads, or adore a cross, and still be a member of your society.’ That is, may be Papist or a Jew. I know no such instance in England or Ireland. We have many members in Ireland that were Papists, but not one that continues so. ‘Other reasons than those that could possibly relate to conscience have borne too much share in the late affair.’ I say as before, I am not conscious of it. And who art thou that judgest another’s servant ‘You have allowed that we are called to this by the Holy Ghost and God was with us in what we did.’ I allow! No more than I allow you to be archangel. I allow neither the one nor the other. I believe you felt joy or power, so called; but I do not know that it was from God, and I said, ‘Supposing you were called of God to this’ (which is exceeding far from granting it), ‘still you ought to waive that privilege out of tenderness to your brethren.’ I do not grant either that God calls you to do this or that He ever blessed you in it.

But the question is, ‘How may these be settled on such a footing as one would wish they might be after my death ‘It is a weighty point, and has taken up many of my thoughts for several years [The thoughts did not take practical shape till 1784, when the Deed of Declaration was executed. See letter of July 23, 1784.]; but I know nothing yet. The steps I am now to take are plain. I see broad light shining upon them. But the other part of the prospect I cannot see: clouds and darkness rest upon it. Your general advice on this head to follow my own conscience, without any regard to consequences, or prudence, so called is unquestionably fight; and it is a rule which I have closely followed for many years, and hope to follow to my life’s end. The first of your particular advices is, ‘to keep in full view the interests of Christ’s Church in general and of practical religion; not considering the Church of England or the cause of Methodism but as subordinate thereto.’ This advice I have punctually observed from the beginning, as well as at our late Conference. You advise, secondly, ‘to keep in view also the unlawfulness of a separation from the Church of England.’ To this likewise I agree. It cannot be lawful to separate from it, unless it be unlawful to continue in it. You advise, thirdly, ‘fully to declare myself on this head, and to suffer no dispute concerning it.’ The very same thing I wrote to my brother from Ireland; and we have declared ourselves without reserve. Nor was there any at the Conference otherwise minded. Those who would have aimed at dispute had left us before. Fourthly, all our preachers as well as ourselves purpose to continue in the Church of England. Nor did they ever before so freely and explicitly declare themselves on this subject. Your last advice is, ‘That as many of our preachers as are fit for it be ordained, and that the others be fixed to certain Societies, not as preachers, but as readers or inspectors.’

To Samuel Furly Date: LONDON, February 11, 1757. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1757) Author: John Wesley --- The times and seasons of continuing comfort and all other spk~ual blessings the Father hath reserved in His own power. And them may be many wise reasons unknown to us (who are of yesterday and know nothing) why He does not answer every prayer as soon as we offer it. Indeed, one very common reason is sin lieth at the door -- perhaps sin of omission, the not following the light, not using the power we have. I know not that this is your cue. Possibly God may see good to take this way to break the stubbornness of your will and destroy your pride of understanding. Certainly you am in the hands of Him that loves you, and that will speedily deliver, if you persevere in waiting for Him and in rejecting all comfort but that which flows from the Spirit of adoption, crying in your heart, Abba Father!

To Dorothy Furly Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1757) Author: John Wesley --- NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 18, 1757. I am the more jealous over you, because I know you are liable to be much influenced by fair words, especially when they are spoken by persons of sense and in an agreeable manner. And flesh and blood are powerful advocates for conformity to the world, particularly in little things. But, blessed be God, we have an unction from the Holy One ready to teach us of all things. O let us attend to this inward teaching, which indeed is always consonant with the word. Then the word, applied by the Spirit, shall be a light in all our ways and a lamp in all our paths. Fight on and conquer I Change of place, as you observe, is but a little thing. But God has in some measure changed your heart, wherein you have great reason to rejoice. And, having received the first fruits of the Spirit, righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, patiently and earnestly war for the great change, whereby every root of bitterness may be torn up. You may profitably converse with even those honorable Christians, if you watch and pray that they do not infect you (1) with Mystical notions, which stand in full opposition to plain old Bible divinity; or (2) with their odd, senseless jargon of a catholic spirit, whereby they have themselves suffered great loss. The spirit of the world I think you are aware of already, and indeed there is danger in every approach to it. I have heard from both Mrs. Gaussen [Charles Wesley writes from the Foundry to his wife on Sept. 21, 1755, ‘Why do you leave Mrs. Gaussen out of your “kind remembrance” You have no friend loves you better.’ See letter of Sept. 25.] and Miss Bosanquet. There is a poor, queer old woman in Bristol (if she is not gone to paradise) with whom it might do you good to talk. John Jones [See letter of April 16 1748.] knows her. Her name is Elizabeth Edgecomb. Peace be with your spirit. -- I am, dear Miss Furly, Your affectionate brother and servant.

To Dorothy Furly Date: TREMENEARE, September 6, 1757. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1757) Author: John Wesley --- Why you should be afraid on account of anything you said to me I do not know. Certainly, if you had said whatever was in your heart, it might have been a means of lessening your burthen and not of increasing it. I believe you have often a desire, and almost a resolution, of saying a great deal to me; but when you come to write or speak, your heart fails. Why should it Why should you repress yourself I should not despise but love you for your openness. It is the fruit and the proof of an honest heart. I know you are weak; I know a little of your particular weaknesses. But so much the more am I concerned for you as a tender, sickly flower. Away, then, with this reserve; it answers no end but to trouble and embarrass you. Tell me freely and plainly any difficulty you meet with, any enemy against whom you want help. Use me as a friend, as I hope you will use Sarah Crosby, and you will find it a blessing to your soul. It will again bring the promise of holiness near; which, indeed, always seems to be far off when we give way to any known sin, when we any way grieve the Spirit of God. There may be some rare cases wherein God has determined not to bestow His perfect love till a little before death; but this I believe is uncommon: He does not usually put off the fulfilling of His promises. Seek, and you shall find; seek earnestly, and you shall find speedily. Lift up the hands that hang down; deny yourself; take up your cross, whether that of meeting your class or any other. Fight on, and victory is at hand! -- I am, dear Miss Fury, Your affectionate servant.

To Samuel Walker Date: PENRYN, September 19, 1757. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1757) Author: John Wesley --- REVEEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- Nothing can be more kind than the mentioning to me whatever you think is amiss in my conduct; and the more freedom you use in doing this, the more I am indebted to you. I am thoroughly convinced that you ‘wish me well,’ and that it is this, together with a ‘concern for the common interests of religion,’ which obliges you to speak with more plainness than otherwise you would. The same motives induce me to lay aside aH reserve and tell you the naked sentiments of my heart. Two years since, eleven or twelve persons of Falmouth were members of our Society. Last year I was informed that a young man them had begun to teach them new opinions, and that soon after offence and prejudice crept in and increased till they were all torn asunder. What they have done since I know not; for they have no connection with us. I do ‘exert myself’ so far as to separate from us those that separate from the Church. But in a thousand other instances I feel the want of more resolution and firmness of spirit. Yet sometimes that may appear irresolution which is not so. I exercise as little authority as possible, because I am afraid of people’s depending upon me too much and paying me more reverence than they ought. But I proceed to the substance of your letter. You say, -- 1. ‘If you still hold the essence of justifying faith to lie in assurance, why did you encourage John Hingeston to believe his state good’ Assurance is a word I do not use because it is not scriptural. But I hold a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me is essential to if not the very essence of justifying faith. John Hingeston told me he had more than this, even a clear conviction that his sins were forgiven; although he said that conviction was not so clear now as it had been in time past.

2. ‘If you beloved Mr. Vowler [Wesley heard Mr. Vowler preach two thundering sermons at St. Agnes on Sept. 4, 1757, and spent an afternoon with him. ‘He both preaches and lives the gospel.’ He died of fever on July 30, 1758. See Journal, iv. 234, 529.] to be a gracious person and a gospel minister, why, did you not in justice to your people leave them to him’ John Hingeston assured me that Mr. Vowler also had a dear conviction of his being reconciled to God. If so, I could not deny his being a gracious person; and I heard him preach the true though not the whole gospel. But had it been the whole, there are several reasons still why I did not give up the people to him. (1) No one mentioned or intimated any such thing, nor did it once enter into my thought. But if it had, (2) I do not know that every one who preaches the truth has wisdom and experience to guide and govern a flock. I do not know that Mr. Vowler in particular has. He may or he may not. (3) I do not know whether he could or would give that flock all the advantages for holiness which they now enjoy; and to leave them to him before I was assured of this would be neither justice nor mercy. (4) Unless they also were assured of the, they could not in conscience give up themselves to him; and I have nether right nor power to dispose of them contrary to their conscience.

And this you yourself account for extremely well. Sed oportet Palaemonem esse memorem. [‘But Palaemon ought to posses a good memory.’ Palaemon was the most famous grammarian in Rome and master of Quintillian.] ‘What a figure would a small number of ministers make in the Church either of England or Scotland who should agree to maintain the plain, obvious sense of their own public standards of doctrine, and insist upon an adherence to that sense as a term of holding communion with them in the sacred institutions! Their situation in the national Church would be very uncomfortable as well as extremely ridiculous. For many enemies would soon be awakened against them, to distress and misrepresent them in various respects.’ (Page 465.) Thus much as a specimen of your veracity. I object, secondly, that you know not what faith is. You talk about it, and labor and sweat, and at last come to a most lame and impotent conclusion. You say: ‘That Christ died for me is a point not easily settled, a point which the Scripture nowhere ascertains’ (the very thought, and nearly the words, of Cardinal Bellarmine, in his dispute with our forefathers): ‘so far from it, that it affirms the final. perdition of many who have great confidence of their interest in Christ’ (this only proves that many fancy they have what they have not, which I suppose nobody will deny); ‘yea, and declares that “wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction”’ (page 14). It is so; but this is nothing to the point -- the nature of true faith. ‘Nature, these men say, begins the work’ (I know none of them who say so); ‘and then grace helps out the efforts of nature, and persuades a man, though he be not mentioned in Scripture either by name or surname, that Christ died for him’ (page 33). ‘So the Spirit whispers something to the heart of a sinner beside what He publicly speaks in the Scriptures. But will any lover of the Scriptures allow the possibility of this -- that the Spirit should ever speak a syllable to any man beside what He publicly speaks there’ (Page 35.) You will presently allow something wonderfully like it. And you suppose yourself to be a ‘lover of the Scriptures.’

To Ebenezer Blackwell Editor's Introductory Notes: 1759 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1759) Author: John Wesley --- [1] EVERTON, March 2, 1759. DEAR SIR,--When it is probable I may alter my judgement or practice, I am very willing to speak upon any head. But when I am clearly and fully fixed, then I do not speak; for it would be lost labour. For this reason I did not speak the other night; because I was fully fixed. My wife picks my lock and steals my papers. Afterwards she says, 'You cannot trust me.' I answer, 'I cannot, till you restore what you stole and promise to steal no more.' She replies, 'I will burn them, or lodge them with another, on such terms.' I answer nothing. Do you ask, Why so! I answer to you: (1) I will not consent my goods shall be burnt, much less accept it as a favour: I require her to restore them. (2) I will not thank her for lodging them with another: I require that they be restored to me. (3) I will not so much as consider the terms: I require the restitution of my own goods without any terms. And I know you would do so were it your case. And so would any man of common sense. 'But she will not restore them.' Then she must keep them. But let her not blame me because I cannot trust her. Permit me to add one word to you. You think yourself a match for her; but you are not. By her exquisite art she has already made you think ill of two very deserving women. [Mrs. Ryan and Mrs. Crosby. See next letter and that of July 12, 1758.] And you have been more than once much puzzled what to think of me! Nor could you help thinking me a little in the wrong. I am almost afraid she likewise entertains you with the faults of many in the Society; the knowing of which (be they real or feigned) does you no good at all. O sir, let us look inward; let us live at home! The more we know of our own faults and the less of other people's, the more will the work of God prosper in our hearts. Wishing all happiness to you and yours, I am, dear sir, -- Your affectionate servant

To Ebenezer Blackwell NORWICH, March 12, 1759. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1759) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR,--You have entirely satisfied me as to what I was afraid of. [See letter of March 2, and Blackwell's answer. His relations with his wife were easier for the moment.] We are at present upon pretty good terms; and I am not without hope that this good understanding will continue for some time longer. I am sure it will, if He who has the hearts of all men in His hand sees it to be expedient for me. You have never yet spoken to me with more freedom than was agreeable to me. Your freedom is the best proof of your friendship. There are not many that will deal freely with me; nor, indeed, are there many from whom I would desire it, lest it should hurt themselves without profiting me. But I do desire it of you; and do not doubt but it will profit me, as it has done in time past. I know not if in all my life I have had so critical a work on my hands as that wherein I am now engaged. I am endeavouring to gather up those who were once gathered together and afterwards scattered by James Wheatley. [On Nov. 3, 1758, Wheatley had offered him the Tabernacle. Wesley preached there on Dec. 21, and took the lease on the 26th. He found on March 7 that 'the Society, once consisting of many hundred members, was mouldered into nothing.' See Journal, iv. 290-6, 301.] I have reunited about seventy of them, and hope this evening to make up an hundred. But many of them have wonderful spirits, having been always accustomed to teach their teachers; so that how they will bear any kind of discipline I cannot tell.

To his Wife GRIMSBY, April 9, 1759. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1759) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR MOLLY,--I must write once more. Then, if I hear nothing from you, I have done. About a year ago, while I suspected nothing less, you opened my bureau and took out many of my letters and papers. Mr. Blackwell advised me, before you, if you refused to restore them, to send that instant for a smith, and break open your bureau and take my own. To prevent which you restored them. But it was not long before you robbed me again, and showed my private letters to more than twenty different persons on purpose to make them have an ill opinion of me. For the same end you spoke much evil of me while I was several hundred miles off. Your presence was that I conversed with Sister Ryan and Crosby. [See letters of July 12, 1758, and March 2and Oct. 23, 1759.] I know it was only a presence, and told your friends the humouring you herein would leave matters just where they were. I knew giving a person drink would not cure a dropsy. However, at their instance I made the experiment. I broke off all correspondence with them, whether by speaking or writing. For a while, having gained your point, you was in a good humour. Afterwards it was just as I said. You robbed me again; and your sin (as before) carried its own punishment: for the papers you had stole harrowed up your soul and tore your poor fretful spirit in pieces.

Notwithstanding this, you wrote me two loving letters. (I hope, not with a design of reading them to other people; which I shall not suspect if you assure me you have not read or shown them in part or in whole to any one.) So that I was a little surprised when at our meeting in Colchester I found you throughly out of humour. It really seemed as if you was heartily vexed by the papers you had taken, and so were resolved to have it out with me. Accordingly you could not refrain from throwing squibs at me even in company, [He was at Colchester on March 19.] and from speaking with such keenness when we were alone, as I think no wife ought to speak to an husband--such as I apprehend you could not have used decently to any but Noah Vazeille. [Her first husband.] Perhaps you may now take the greater liberty, because, having stripped me of all my papers, you imagine it is now absolutely impossible for me to justify myself. But you are under a mistake. To all that know me my word is a sufficient justification. And if anything more is needful, I know One that is able to say to the Grave, 'Give back!' Yea, and if He say it to Jealousy, cruel as the Grave, it shall hear and obey His voice. Wishing you the blessing which you now want above any other--namely, unfeigned and deep repentance,--I remain Your much injured yet still affectionate Husband. To Mrs. Wesley, At the Foundery, London.

To his Brother Charles Editor's Introductory Notes: 1760 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1760) Author: John Wesley --- [11] COOLALOUGH, June 23, 1760. DEAR BROTHER,--Where you are I know not, and how you are I know not; but I hope the best. Neither you nor John Jones [See letter of June 1.] has ever sent me your remarks upon that tract in the late volume of Sermons. [The fourth volume, which included six tracts. Thoughts on Christian Perfection is the fifth. The doctrine had been largely considered at the London Conference in Aug. 1759, and the tract was published soon after. The Preface to it is dated Bristol, Oct. 16, 1759. See letter of June 12, 1759.] You are not kind. Why will you not do all you can to make me wiser than I am Sam. Furly told me his objections at once; so we canvassed them without loss of time. [See previous letter.] Do you know what is done, anything or nothing, with regard to the small edition of the Notes [First edition, 4to, 1755. Third, corrected, Bristol; Grabham & Pine, 1760-2, 12mo, 3 vols, See letter of June 18, 1756.] Mr. I'Anson writes me a long account of the Sussex affair. It is of more consequence than our people seem to apprehend. If we do not exert ourselves, it may drive us to that bad dilemma--Leave preaching, or leave the Church. We have reason to thank God it is not come to this yet. Perhaps it never may. In this kingdom nothing is wanting but a few more zealous and active labourers. James Morgan, [See letter of April 26.] John Johnson, [John Johnson became an itinerant preacher in 1755, and after sixteen years settled at Lisburn. For some time he was General Superintendent in Ireland. He died on Dec. 29, 1803, at the age of seventy eight. See letter of Sept. 26, 1784, to him.] and two or three more do their best; the rest spare themselves. I hope Sally and your little ones are well. Where and how is my wife I wrote to her on Saturday last. Adieu! Where must the Conference be, at Leeds or Bristol If we could but chain or gag the blatant beast, there would be no difficulty. [12]

To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post' Editor's Introductory Notes: 1760 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1760) Author: John Wesley --- [14] LONDON, November 17, I 760. SIR,--In your last paper we had a letter from a very angry gentleman (though he says he had put himself into as good humour as possible), who personates a clergyman, but is, I presume, in reality a retainer to the theatre. He is very warm against the people vulgarly called Methodists, 'ridiculous impostors,' 'religious buffoons,' as he styles them; 'saint-errants' (a pretty and quaint phrase), full of 'inconsiderateness, madness, melancholy, enthusiasm'; teaching a 'knotty and unintelligible system' of religion--yea, a 'contradictory or self-contradicting'; nay, a 'mere illusion,' a 'destructive scheme, and of pernicious consequence'; since 'an hypothesis is a very slippery foundation to hazard our all upon.' Methinks the gentleman has a little mistaken his character: he seems to have exchanged the sock for the buskin. But, be this as it may, general charges prove nothing. Let us come to particulars. Here they are: 'The basis of Methodism is the grace of assurance' (excuse a little impropriety of expression), 'regeneration being only a preparative to it.' Truly this is somewhat 'knotty and unintelligible.' I will endeavour to help him out. The fundamental doctrine of the people called Methodists is, Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the true faith;--the faith which works by love; which, by means of the love of God and our neighbour, produces both inward and outward holiness. This faith is an evidence of things not seen; and he that thus believes is regenerate, or born of God; and he has the witness in himself (call it assurance or what you please): the Spirit itself witnesses with his spirit that he is a child of God. 'From what scripture' every one of these propositions 'is collected' any common Concordance will show. 'This is the true portraiture of Methodism,' so called. 'A religion superior to this' (the love of God and man) none can 'enjoy,' either in time or in eternity.

But the Methodists do not hold 'good works meritorious.' No; neither does ours, or any other Protestant Church. But meantime they hold it is their bounder duty, as they have time, to do good unto all men; and they know the day is coming wherein God will reward every man according to his works. But they 'act with sullenness and sourness, and account innocent gaiety and cheerfulness a crime almost as heinous as sacrilege.' Who does Name the men. I know them not, and therefore doubt the fact; though it is very possible you account that kind of gaiety innocent which I account both foolish and sinful. I know none who denies that true religion--that is, love, the love of God and our neighbour--'elevates our spirits, and renders our minds cheerful and serene.' It must, if it be accompanied (as we believe it always is) with peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, and if it produces a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man. But they 'preach up religion only to accomplish a lucrative design, to fleece their hearers, to accumulate wealth, to rob and plunder, which they esteem meritorious.' We deny the fact. Who is able to prove it Let the affirmer produce his witnesses, or retract. This is the sum of your correspondent's charge, not one article of which can be proved; but whether it can or no, 'we have made them,' says he, 'a theatrical scoff and the common jest and scorn of every chorister in the street.' It may be so; but whether you have done well herein may still admit of a question. However, you cannot but wish 'we had some formal Court of Judicature erected' (happy Portugal and Spain!) 'to take cognizance of such matters.' Nay, cur optas quod habes [Horace's Satires, 1. iii. 126.] Why do you wish for that you have already The Court is erected: the holy, devout playhouse is become the House of Mercy; and does take cognizance hereof 'of all pretenders to sanctity, and happily furnishes us with a discerning spirit to distinguish betwixt right and wrong.' But I do not stand to their sentence; I appeal to Scripture and reason, and by these alone consent to be judged. --I am, sir, Your humble servant.

You blame me (2) for teaching heterodox doctrine concerning faith and good works (I am obliged to put the meaning of many of your straggling sentences together as well as I can). As to the former, which you still awkwardly and unscripturally style the grace of assurance (a phrase I never use), you say: 'You have given it a true Methodistical gloss. But where are the proofs from Scripture Not one single text.' Sir, that is your ignorance. I perceive the Bible is a book you are not acquainted with. Every sentence in my account is a text of Scripture. I purposely refrained from quoting chapter and verse, because I expected you would bewray your ignorance, and show that you was got quite out of your depth. As your old friend Mr. Vellum says, 'You will pardon me for being jocular.' To one who seriously desired information on this point I would explain it a little farther. Faith is an evidence or conviction of things not seen, of God, and the things of God. This is faith in general. More particularly it is a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. This directly leads us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling; not with slavish, painful fear, but with the utmost diligence, which is the proper import of that expression. When this evidence is heightened to exclude all doubt, it is the plerophory or full assurance of faith. But any degree of true faith prompts the believer to be zealous of good works.

On this head you say: 'Your definition of good works' (truly I gave none at all) 'is still more extraordinary. You shall have it in your own words, where you quarrel with me for esteeming them meritorious,--No, neither does ours or any other Protestant Church; but meantime they hold it their bounder duty as they have time to do good unto all men. And they know the day is coming wherein God will render to every man according to his works. Admirable contradiction! Was you intoxicated, or jure diving mad Is man to be judged for his deeds done in this life, when it is immaterial whether he does any or not These are your own words, sir.' What That 'it is immaterial whether he does any good works or not' Hey-day! How is this O, I cry your mercy, sir, now I find where the shoe pinches. You have stumbled on an hard word which you do not understand. But give me leave, sir, to assure you (you may take my word for once) that meritorious and material are not all one. Accordingly not only the Church of England but all other Protestant Churches allow good works to be material, and yet (without any contradiction) deny them to be meritorious. They all likewise allow that the genuine fruit of faith is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; and consequently that cheerfulness or serenity of spirit (a mixture of that peace and joy) is so far from being a crime, that it is the undoubted privilege of every real Christian. I know no Methodist (so called) who is of another mind: if you do, tell me the man. I believe 'it is not your intention to do this.' But you must either do it or bear the blame. You blame me (3) for allowing of lay preachers. This is too knotty a point to be settled at present. I can only desire those who want farther information therein to read calmly A Letter to a Clergyman [See letter of May 4, 1748, and Works, viii. 221-6 ] or the latter part of the third Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion.

You blame me (4) for acting from 'a lucrative principle,' though you 'deny you used the word robbing.' (True; for you only said, 'To rob and plunder.') In proof of this you refer to the houses I have built (in Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne). But don't you know, sir, those houses are none of mine I made them over to trustees long ago. I have food to eat and raiment to put on; and I will have no more till I turn Turk or Pagan.--I am, sir, in very good humour, Your well-wisher. PS.--It is not very material whether T. H., Somebody, and Philodemus are the same individual or not. I have subjoined his Questions with my Answers; though they have all been answered fifty times before. Q. 1. Whether a very considerable body of the Methodists do not declare that there can be no good hopes of salvation without Assurance A. Yes: if you mean by that term a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. Q. 2. Whether they do not put a greater confidence in what they call Regeneration than in the moral or social duties of life A. No. They hold the due discharge of all these duties to be absolutely necessary to salvation. The latter part of this query, 'of the mercy of the Divine Being,' seems to have lost its way. Q. 3. Whether the Stage in later years has ever ridiculed anything really serious A. Yes; a thousand times. Who that reads Dryden's, Wycherley's, or Congreve's plays can doubt it Q. 4. Whether anything can be religious that has not right reason to countenance it A. No. True religion is the highest reason. It is indeed wisdom, virtue, and happiness in one.

In the fourth paragraph you say: 'Did you never use that phrase the grace of assurance ' Never, that I remember, either in preaching or writing; both your ears and eyes have been very unhappy if they informed you I did: and, how many soever look either sorrowful or joyful, that will not prove the contrary. 'But produce your texts.' What, for a phrase I never use I pray you have me excused. But (as I said before) 'from what scripture every one of my propositions is collected any common Concordance will show.' To save you trouble, I will for once point out those scriptures: 'Whosoever will be saved must believe' (Mark xvi. 16; Acts xvi. 31); 'This faith works by love' (Gal. v. 6); it is 'an evidence of things not seen' (Heb. xi. 1); 'He that believes is born of God' (1 John v. 1); 'He has the witness in himself' (verse 10); 'The Spirit itself witnesses with his spirit that he is a child of God' (Rom. viii. 16). In the fifth you say: 'You embrace any shift to twist words to your own meaning.' This is saying just nothing. Any one may say this of any one. To prove it is another point. In the sixth you say: 'No Protestant divine ever taught your doctrine of Assurance.' I hope you know no better; but it is strange you should not. Did you never see Bishop Hall's Works Was not he a Protestant divine Was not Mr. Perkins, Bolton, Dr. Sibbs, Dr. Preston, Archbishop Leighton Inquire a little farther; and do not run thus hand over head, asserting you know not what. By assurance (if we must use the expression) I mean 'a confidence which a man hath in God that by the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven and he reconciled to the favour of God.' Stop! Do not run your head into a noose again. These are the words of the Homily. In the seventh you grant 'that works are not meritorious unless accompanied with faith.' No, nor then neither. But pray do not talk of this any more till you know the difference between meritorious and rewardable; otherwise your ignorance will cause you to blunder on without shame and without end.

In your third letter you say: 'None of the principles of the Methodists have a more fatal tendency than the doctrine of Assurance.' I allow it; and it is past your skill to prove that this has any fatal tendency at all, unless as you wonderfully explain it in the following words: 'They insist that themselves are sure of salvation, but that all others are in a damnable state!' Who do? Not I, nor any that I know but Papists. Therefore all that you add to disprove this, which no one affirms, is but beating the air, 'But St. Paul commands us to pass the time of our sojourning here in fear.' Indeed, he does not; your memory fails: but St. Peter does, and that is as well.

Your fourth (for want of a better) is to serve for a reply to my answer. In this you stoutly say: 'Sir, your performance is frivolous and fallacious.' Very well; but others must judge of that. 'Shocks, sir, or violent operations of the Spirit are too fully evidenced by your trances, ecstasies, and I know not what.' I assure you, neither do I; but if you please to tell me, when you do know a little of the matter, I will give you what satisfaction I can. 'These appear in the practices of your followers, and as such must destroy free agency.' Nay, sir, you are now too severe, especially in that keen 'as such.' 'As you then assert such practices, you are (excuse the harshness of the expression) an enemy to religion and a deceiver of the people.' Sir, I do excuse you. I am pretty well used to such expressions: if they hurt not you, they hurt not me. 'Until you publish in plain, intelligible words your scheme of principles, it is impossible to say what you are.' I have done it ten times over, particularly in The Principles of a Methodist, the Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion, and (what I am not without hope might be intelligible even to you) Instructions for Children. 'I must be plain with you: you seem, sir, to have as much knowledge of the Scriptures as a Mahometan.' Sir, I thank you; and I presume you do not expect any other answer to this. 'That you are an enthusiast, a very great enthusiast, not I, let your own Journals demonstrably prove.' Nay, why not you? I fear my Journals will not give such proof as will satisfy any impartial person. 'As to dogmas, I do not know that it is good English: I know it is false dog-Latin.' Now, I really thought it was neither Latin nor English: I took it to be mere heathen Greek. Whenever you please to favour the public with your name and place of abode, you may perhaps (if I have leisure) hear farther from Your humble servant and well-wisher.

But to turn the tables: I said, 'If the Romish bishops do.' For this I absolutely deny. I deny that the Romish bishops came down by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles. I never could see it proved; and I am persuaded I never shall. But unless this is proved, your own pastors on your principles are no pastors at all. But farther: it is a doctrine of your Church that the intention of the administrator is essential to the validity of the sacraments which are administered by him. Now, are you assured of the intention of every priest from whom you have received the Host? If not, you do not know but what you received as the sacrament of the altar was no sacrament at all. Are you assured of the intention of the priest who baptized you? If not, perhaps you are not baptized at all. To come close to the point in hand: if you pass for a priest, are you assured of the intention of the bishop that ordained you? If not, you may happen to be no priest, and so all your ministry is nothing worth: nay, by the same rule he may happen to be no bishop. And who can tell how often this has been the case? But if there has been only one instance in a thousand years, what becomes of your uninterrupted succession? This ad hominem. But I have a word more ad rem. Can a man teach what he does not know? Is it possible a man should teach others what he does not know himself? Certainly it is not. Can a priest, then, teach his hearers the way to heaven marked out in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount if he does not know or understand the way himself? Nothing is more impossible. But how many of your priests know nothing about it! What avails, then, their commission to teach what they cannot teach, because they know it not? Did God, then, send these men on a fool's errand? send them to do what they cannot do? O say not so! And what will be the event of their attempting to teach they know not what? Why, 'if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit.'

To Dr. Green Date: LONDON, April 2, 1761. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND SIR, --I have no desire to dispute, least of all with one whom I believe to fear God and work righteousness. And I have no time to spare. Yet I think it my duty to write a few lines with regard to those you sent to Mr. Bennet. You therein say: 'If you sent me the books to inform me of an error which I had publicly advanced, pardon me if I say I know numbers who call themselves Methodists assert their assurance of salvation at the very time they wallow in sins of the deepest dye.' Permit me, sir, to speak freely. I do not doubt the fact. But (1) Those who are connected with me do not call themselves Methodists. Others call them by that nickname, and they cannot help it; but I continually warn them not to pin it upon themselves. (2) We rarely use that ambiguous expression of 'Christ's righteousness imputed to us.' (3) We believe a man may be a real Christian without being 'assured of his salvation.' (4) We know no man can be assured of salvation while he lives in any sin whatever. (5) The wretches who talk in that manner are neither Methodists nor Moravians, but followers of William Cudworth, James Relly, and their associates, who abhor us as much as they do the Pope, and ten times more than they do the devil. If you oppose these, so do I; and have done privately and publicly for these twenty years.

To Mrs. Booth Date: SUNDERLAND, May 29, 1761. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--It is a long time to the 1st of August. Before that time many of us may be in Abraham's bosom. If I am at Sheffield that morning, very probably I may be at Woodseats the same day at noon. I do not know but George Tizard [Tizard became a preacher in 1759, and was afterwards a clergyman.] may be on that Round some time longer. Oh what cause have we to praise God for all the wonders He has wrought!--I am, with love to Brother Booth, Your affectionate brother. I return to Newcastle in a day or two.

To Mrs. Hall Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- NEAR NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 14, 1761. DEAR PATTY--Why should any of us live in the world without doing a little good in it? I am glad you have made a beginning. See that you are not weary of well doing; for it will often be a cross. But bear the cross, and it will bear you. The best fruit grows under the cross. I have often thought it strange that so few of my relations should be of any use to me in the work of God. My sister Wright was, of whom I should least have expected it; but it was only for a short season. My sister Emly and you, of whom one might have expected more, have, I know not how, kept at a distance, and sometimes cavilled a little, at other times as it were approved, but never heartily joined in the work. Where did it stick? Did you not throughly understand what my brother and I were doing? Did you not see the truth? Or did the cause lie in your heart? You had no will to join hand in hand. You wanted resolution, spirit, patience. Well, the day is far spent. What you do, do quickly. 'Life for delay no time will give!' [My] work in the country cannot be finished before the latter end of August, as the circuit is now larger by [some] hundred miles than when I was in the North two [years] ago. O let the one thing be ever uppermost in our thoughts! To promote either your temporal or eternal good will always be a pleasure to, dear Patty, Your affectionate Brother. [Wesley was much concerned about his sister. See letter of Dec. 26 to his brother.] Endorsed 'I am obliged to my dear B[rother] for [this].'

To Ebenezer Blackwell Date: BRADFORD, July 16, 1761. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR,--Methinks it is a long time since I saw or heard anything of you. I hope, however, that Mrs. Blackwell and you are not only alive, but more alive than ever, seeking and enjoying something more than King George is likely to find either at his wedding or his coronation. [George III was married to Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz on Sept. 8, and crowned on Sept. 22.] And can you likewise give me a comfortable account of Miss Freeman, both as to her health and her spirit? I often think of her, and sometimes have a mind to send her another letter, though she is one in my debt already. Mr. Venn was so kind as to come over hither yesterday and spend the evening with us. [This visit of Henry Venn is not mentioned in the Journal, but another is noticed on July 24. See next letter.] I am a little embarrassed on his account, and hardly know how to act. Several years before he came to Huddersfield some of our preachers went thither, carrying their lives in their hands, and with great difficulty established a little, earnest Society. These eagerly desire them to preach there still; not in opposition to Mr. Venn (whom they love, esteem, and constantly attend), but to supply what they do not find in his preaching. It is a tender point. Where there is a gospel ministry already, we do not desire to preach; but whether we can leave off preaching because such an one comes after is another question, especially when those who were awakened and convinced by us beg and require the continuance of our assistance. I love peace, and follow it; but whether I am at liberty to purchase it at such price I really cannot tell.

To Grace Walton Date: LONDON, September 8, 1761. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- SISTER,--If a few more persons come in when you are meeting, either enlarge four or five minutes on the question you had, with a short exhortation (perhaps for five or six minutes, sing and pray). [See letters of Feb. 14, 1761, and March 18, 1769.] I think, and always, its meaning is this: 'I suffer not a woman to teach in a congregation, nor thereby to assert authority over the man . . . God has invested with this prerogative; whereas teaching . I ask you some more questions, which you may answer as soon as you have opportunity: Had you then, or have you had since, a witness that you would never finally perish? Have you a witness that sin shall never enter more? Have you a witness that you shall no more offend God? If so, what need have you to watch against sin! Do you ever use self-examination? At what times or in what meaning? Do you always see God? Does no cloud ever interpose? Are you as sure you see Him as that you are living? Does nothing ever dim your sight of God? Have you an experimental proof of the ever-blessed Trinity? Is your mind always stayed on God? Do your thoughts never wander from Him in prayer, in business, or in travelling? What are you looking for now?--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Ryan Date: LONDON, November 12, 1761. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--Your letter gave me much satisfaction. You answer me simply and clearly. So much the rather I will ask you some more questions, which you may answer as soon as you have opportunity. [See letter of Nov. 4, 1758, to her.] Had you then, or have you had since, a witness that you should never finally perish? Have you a witness that you shall no more offend God? If so, what need have you to watch against sin! Do you ever use self-examination? At what times or in what manner? Do you always see God? Does no cloud ever interpose? Are you as sure you see Him as that you are alive? Does nothing ever dim your sight of God? Have you an experimental proof of the ever-blessed Trinity? Is your mind always stayed on God? Do your thoughts never wander from Him in prayer, in business, or in travelling? What are you looking for now?--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Miss J. C. March Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1762) Author: John Wesley --- [1] LONDON, January 30, 1762. When you was justified, you had a direct witness that your sins were forgiven; afterward this witness was frequently intermitted, and yet you did not doubt of it. In like manner, you have had a direct witness that you are saved from sin; and this witness is frequently intermitted, and yet even then you do not doubt of it. But I much doubt if God withdraws either the one witness or the other without some occasion given on our part. I never knew any one receive the abiding witness gradually; therefore I incline to think this also is given in a moment. But there will be still after this abundant room for a gradual growth in grace.

To Mrs. Moon Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1762) Author: John Wesley --- [9] CANTERBURY, November 5, 1762. MY DEAR SISTER,--Ten times I believe I have been going to answer your last, and have been as often hindered. Surely Satan does not approve of our corresponding together. And no wonder, seeing he does not like what tends to the furtherance of the kingdom of God. And this your letters always do. I find an animating, strengthening power in them. And this is what I particularly want; for I often feel a feebleness of soul, a languor of spirit, so that I cannot as I would press forward toward the mark. This I am particularly sensible of when I am in company with serious, good-natured people, who are not alive to God, and yet say nothing that one can well reprove. I am then apt to sit silent, and make as it were a drawn battle. I want vigour of spirit to break through, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear. Help me forward, my friend, by your prayers. If that fever continues in the country still, you may cure all that are taken ill near you. But it must be helped at the beginning. (1) No bleeding, no blistering: these are extremely hurtful. (2) Give the patient a pint of spring water sweetened with a large spoonful of treacle, lying down in bed. If this is taken at the beginning of the fever, I never once knew it fail. How does the work of God now go on round about you Is Brother Cotty [James Cotty was a preacher from 1767 to 1780.] able to preach And can John Manners [See letter of March 24, 1761.] do anything I want much to know the particulars of Miss Romaine's [Probably a relative of the Rev. William Romaine, who was born at Hartlepool in 1714.] experience. I wish she would write to me. Do you find a growth in grace in lowliness, meekness, patience May our Lord make all grace to abound in you!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To his Brother Charles Date: LONDON, January 5, 1763. [Wesley wrote 1762, but the year was young. The contents of the letter show that it should be 1763, as Charles Wesley endorsed it.] Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1763) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, -- You take me right. I am far from pronouncing my remarks ex cathedra. I only desire they may be fairly considered. I was a little surprised to find Bishop Warburton [See letter of Dec. 11, 1762.] so entirely unacquainted with the New Testament; and, notwithstanding all his parade of learning, I believe he is no critic in Greek. If Thomas Maxfield continues as he is, it is impossible he should long continue with us.[This was a time Of great ‘care and trouble’ to Wesley, due to Maxfield and Bell. Wesley had defended Maxfield from charges at the Conference of 1761, and had written plainly to him. See Journal, iv. 541-2; Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 432-41.] But I live in hope of better things. Meantime festina lente! I baptized two Turks two or three weeks ago.[On Dec. 4, 1762, at the desire of Maxfield, Wesley baptized these two men, who proved to be impostors. See Journal, iv. 540, v. 3; and letter of Feb. 8.] They seem to be strong in faith; and their story is very probable, but I am not sure it is true. I wait for farther evidence. This week I have begun to speak my mind concerning five or six honest enthusiasts. [Maxfield led a select band in London. They had ‘dreams, visions, and impressions,’ and he encouraged these enthusiasts. See letter of Nov. 2, 1762.] But I move only an hair’s breadth at a time, and by this means we come nearer and nearer to each other. No sharpness will profit. There is need of a lady’s hand as well as a lion’s heart.

To Dorothy Furly Date: LEWISHAM, December 15, 1763. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1763) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- It has seemed to me for some time that God will not suffer Cornelius Bastable [See letters of Aug. 19, 1759, and Oct. 12, 1778.] to live at Cork. He may starve there, but he cannot live. The people are not worthy of him. Salvation from sin is a deeper and higher work than either you or Sarah Ryan can conceive. But do not imagine (as we are continually prone to do) that it lies in an indivisible point. You experienced a taste of it when you were justified; you since experienced the thing itself, only in a low degree; and God gave you His Spirit that you might know the things which He had freely given you. Hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast unto the end. You are continually apt to throw away what you have for what you want. However, you are right in looking for a farther instantaneous change as well as a constant gradual one. But it is not good for you to be quite alone; you should converse frequently as well as freely with Miss Johnson, and any other that is much alive. You have great need of this. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Freeman Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1764) Author: John Wesley --- [2] LONDON, March 2, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--Such love as yours is need not be ashamed. You must make me amends for anything past that looks unkind by altering it for the time to come. You have no reason to doubt of the work of God. It partly shines by its own light. And when that is not sufficient (as in times of temptation), a clear witness shall be superadded. And see that you strengthen your brethren, particularly those who are tempted to give up their confidence. O lift up the hands that hang down! Help those especially who did once taste of pure love. My will has nothing to do in my coming over this spring. If a ship be ready, I shall embark. O Jenny, look up and receive more!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Freeman.

To Mrs. Ryan Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1764) Author: John Wesley --- [3] WEDNESBURY, March 25, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad you wrote, and that you write so freely. There needs no reserve between you and me. It is very easy for you to judge concerning what you have heard. Who are they that 'always praise me' (that is, to my face). I really know none such. You are said to do so. But I think you are clear of the accusation. Certain it is, then, I cleave to none upon this account. For I know not the men. But you 'do not take those to be your real friends who tell you what they think wrong.' Do I not take Sally Ryan and Mary Bosanquet to be my real friends And certainly they have told me more of this kind than all the world besides. Do you now find an uninterrupted communion with God Is He in all your thoughts In what sense do you pray always and in everything give thanks Are you always happy Is your will wholly subject to the will of God Do you feel no repugnance to any of His dispensations Continue to pray for, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Ryan Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1764) Author: John Wesley --- [7] HUTTON RUDBY, April 23, 1764. Do you always find a direct witness that you are saved from sin How long have you had this Have you as clear and strong an evidence of eternal as of temporal things Do you never find what they call 'lowness of spirits' How far do you find wandering thoughts

To Thomas Newall NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 7, 1764. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1764) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--Pray tell Brother Johnson [John or Thomas Johnson. See notes in letters of Sept. 3, 1756 (to Samuel Walker), and June 23, 1760.] I am satisfied about the horse. I don't know what rules they are which he speaks of. I suppose the Conference will begin at Bristol the second week in August. [The Conference began on Aug. 6.] I have often complained that most of our preachers were unfaithful to each other, not [saying] freely to each other what they thought amiss. I doubt that has been the case between you and John Atlay. [Atlay was afterwards Wesley's Book Steward. See letter of May 6, 1774, to him.] 'Tis well if you have spoke freely to him. You don't know what good you might do thereby. An hint or two will do nothing. Take the opportunity when you give him my letter, and your labour will not be in vain. Press all our believers strongly and explicitly to go on to perfection.--I am Your affectionate brother. For the present you must act as an Assistant. To Mr. Newall, At Mr. John Hall's In Newgate Street, London.

Will it be agreeable to my dear Lady Maxwell that I trouble her with a letter so soon and that I write with so little ceremony that I use no compliment, but all plainness of speech If it be not, you must tell me so, and I shall know better how to speak for the time to come. Indeed, it would be unpleasing to me to use reserve: the regard I feel for you strongly inclines me to 'think aloud,' to tell you every thought which rises in my heart. I think God has taken unusual pains, so to speak, to make you a Christian;-- a Christian indeed, not in name, worshipping God in spirit and in truth; having in you the mind that was in Christ, and walking as Christ also walked. He has given you affliction upon affliction; He has used every possible means to unhinge your soul from things of earth, that it might fix on Him alone. How far the design of His love has succeeded I could not well judge from a short conversation. Your Ladyship will therefore give me leave to inquire, Is the heaviness you frequently feel merely owing to weakness of body and the loss of near relations I will hope it is not. It might, indeed, at first spring from these outward pressures. But did not the gracious Spirit of God strike in, and take occasion from these to convince you of sin, of unbelief, of the want of Christ And is not the sense of this one great cause, if not the greatest, of your present distress If so, the greatest danger is, either that you should stifle that conviction, not suffering yourself to be convinced that you are all sin, the chief of sinners; or that you should heal the wound slightly, that you should rest before you know Christ is yours, before His Spirit witnesses with your spirit that you are a child of God. My dear Lady, be not afraid to know yourself--yea, to know yourself as you are known. How soon, then, will you know your Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous! And why not this day why not this hour If you feel your want, I beseech the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to look upon you now! O give Thy servant power to believe!

To Sarah Moore Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1764) Author: John Wesley --- [15] LEEDS, July 5, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am fully convinced that T. Bryant's staying another year in the Sheffield Circuit would neither be good for him nor for the people. I know his strength, and I know his weakness. But he shall go no farther than the Leeds Circuit, from whence he may now and then step over to Sheffield, and the Sheffield preacher to Leeds. Sally, see that you walk circumspectfully. The eyes of many are upon you; and, above all, the eye of God!--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Thomas Rankin Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1764) Author: John Wesley --- [23] LONDON, November 6, 1764. DEAR TOMMY,--If the Crowan or Buryan Society are able to bear the expense of building themselves, we have no objection; but we must not increase our debt this year. This is what we determined. If you do build, build large enough. In general, we do not pay rent out of the public stock, but get help from friends in the circuit. For once we may allow forty shillings. I shall write to Plymouth Dock this post. I hope John Catermole (a sound man) will come and help you. I shall either mend William Darney or end him. He must not go on in this manner. Spread the little tracts wherever you go. You know the solid good which results therefrom. Go on; spend and be spent for a good Master.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To his Brother Charles Date: LONDON, December 7, 1764. DEAR BROTHER,--Be so kind as to show this to T. Lewis and M. Davis: so I may answer theirs and yours together. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1764) Author: John Wesley --- What need of a formal petition Would it not be just as effectual for me to write a letter to the Corporation, in the name of all the Bristol Methodists, urging, first, Mr. Witherspoon's argument against the English theatre; secondly, the matter of fact, the actual mischief done thereby; and then gently and respectfully making the application What think you Ecquid novisti rectius ['Do you know any better way'] Send me word without delay. Sister Suky was in huge agonies for five days, and then died in the full assurance of faith. Some of her last words (after she had been speechless for some time) were, 'Jesus is come! Heaven is here!' I am like Simonides. The more I think, the less able I am to answer the King's question: to prove the necessity, expediency, or propriety of an atonement to an unconvinced sinner. [See letter of Dec. 31.] Indeed, you ought to have said something to Thomas Maxfield's letter, had it been only what you say now. He is Thomas Maxfield still. Cerebrum non habet. ['He has no brains.'] Mr. Richardson is better and better. James Wheatley (the jewel!) has given me warning to quit the Tabernacle in spring: so I am preparing to build at Norwich; for no place already built can be procured for love or money. I think verily there is no need that you and I should be such strangers to each other. Surely we are old enough to be wiser. Come, I will give you a little work. Translate for me into good English the Latin verses that occur in the Earnest Appeal; and why not those three Greek ones-- 'H, kai kuanehsin ep ofrusi neuse Kroviwnhr &c. [The three lines are given in A Farther Appeal, Part II., Works, viii. 150. Homer's Iliad, i. 528-30: 'Jove spake, and nodded his sable brow, &c.'] I have answered poor Mr. Hervey's last tract so far as it is personal. My love to Sally. Vivamus! Adieu! You should send Charles Perronet's book immediately. [An Extract of the 'Life of Armelle Nicholas,'1763.] The tax of the Apostolic Chamber.

As to the other tale, 'The Bishop told me himself' (I pray in what tongue for he speaks no English, and you no Greek, any more than your interpreter so called) 'that Mr. Wesley desired Mr. Jones to know of him if he would consecrate him bishop' Mr. Jones solemnly declares that he never told the Bishop any such thing. But, be that as it may, the point does not turn on the validity of ordination by a Greek bishop, but on the validity of ordination procured by money and performed in an unknown tongue. My advice to you is either be silent or procure a better defender of your cause.

To Thomas Rankin Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1765) Author: John Wesley --- [11] LIMERICK, June 9, 1765. DEAR TOMMY,--You see my plan on the other side. [The previous letter.] Tell me of any alteration or addition which you think proper, and fix your Quarterly Meetings as you please, only let full notice be given. Brother Roberts [See letter of Sept. 3, 1763.] has reunited them at the Dock; and I have a mild, loving letter from Brother Jones. [See letter of Jan. 13.] Nevertheless it is a doubt whether I ought to go to the Dock at all before the house is settled. 'Tis pity, if a ready passage should offer, but one could exchange with Geo. Story. You know the man. If it cannot be, we must be content. Peace be with your spirit.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Peggy Dale KILKENNY, July 5, 1765. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1765) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--Although it is certain the kind of wandering thoughts which you mention are consistent with pure love, yet it is highly desirable to be delivered from them, because (as you observe) they hinder profitable thoughts. And why should not you be delivered Indeed, in what manner this will be done we do not know. Sometimes it pleases our Lord to work a great deliverance even of this kind in a moment. Sometimes He gives the victory by degrees. And I believe this is more common. Expect this and every good gift from Him. How wise and gracious are all His ways! Do you commonly find in yourself the witness that you are saved from sin And is it usually clear Or do you frequently lose it I do not know why you should ever lose any good gift. For is not He the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever And yet you have known but a little of Him. You are to sink a thousand times deeper into Him: That sea of light and love unknown, Without a bottom or a shore. I hope Miss Lewen and you speak to each other, not only without disguise, but without reserve. How is your lot cast in a fair ground! How well are you situated for making the best of a short life! Secluded from the world and all its care, Hast thou to joy or grieve, to hope or fear That is, with regard to present things No: God has given you a nobler portion. You have nothing to care for but how you may most entirely and effectually present yourself a living sacrifice to God. When I reflect upon your earnest desire to do this and upon your simplicity of heart, it gives an unspeakable pleasure to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. I expect to be at Dublin till the end of this month. I send Miss Lewen's letter by Portpatrick to try which comes soonest. [The letter to Miss Lewen is missing.] To Miss Peggy Dale, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

On the former head you say: 'Our Church has long been infested with these grievous wolves, who, though no more than two when they entered in, and they so young they might rather be called wolflings' (that is lively and pretty!), 'have yet spread their ravenous kind through every part of this kingdom. Where, what havoc they have made, how many of the sheep they have torn, I need not say.' (Pages 4-5.) 'About twenty-five years ago these two bold though beardless divines' (pity, sir, that you had not taught me twenty-five years ago sapientem pascere barbam, [Horace's Satires, II. iii. 35: 'What time, by his instructions cheered. He bade me train his sapient beard.'] and thereby to avoid some part of your displeasure), 'being lifted up with spiritual pride, were presumptuous enough to become founders of the sect called Methodists' (page 6). 'A couple of young, raw, aspiring twigs of the ministry dreamed of a special and supernatural call to this' (page 25). No, sir; it was you dreamed of this, not we. We dreamed of nothing twenty-five years ago but instructing our pupils in religion and learning and a few prisoners in the common principles of Christianity. You go on: 'They were ambitious of being accounted missionaries, immediately delegated by Heaven to correct the errors of bishops and archbishops and reform their abuses, to instruct the clergy in the true nature of Christianity, and to caution the laity not to venture their souls in any such unhallowed hands as refused to be initiated in all the mysteries of Methodism' (pages 20-1). Well asserted indeed; but where is the proof of any one of these propositions I must insist upon this--clear, cogent proof; else they must be set down for so many glaring falsehoods.

4. 'The Church of Rome (to which on so many accounts they were much obliged, and as gratefully returned the obligation) taught them to set up for infallible interpreters of Scripture' (page 54). Pray on what accounts are we 'obliged to the Church of Rome' and how have we 'returned the obligation' I beg you would please (1) to explain this; and (2) to prove that we ever yet (whoever taught us) 'set up for infallible interpreters of Scripture.' So far from it, that we have over and over declared, in print as well as in public preaching, 'We are no more to expect any living man to be infallible than to be omniscient.'[Works, vi. 4.] 5. 'As to other extraordinary gifts, influences, and operations of the Holy Ghost, no man who has but once dipped into their Journals and other ostentatious trash of the same kind can doubt their looking upon themselves as not coming one whit behind the greatest of the Apostles' (page 21). I acquit you, sir, of ever having 'once dipped into that ostentatious trash.' I do not accuse you of having read so much as the titles of my Journals. I say my Journals; for (as little as you seem to know it) my brother has published none. [Extracts were published in 1793 in Whitehead's Life of John and Charles Wesley, and in Jackson's Charles Wesley in 1841. The Journal itself did not appear till 1849.] I therefore look upon this as simple ignorance. You talk thus because you know no better. You do not know that in these very Journals I utterly disclaim the 'extraordinary gifts of the Spirit,' and all other 'influences and operations of the Holy Ghost' than those that are common to all real Christians. And yet I will not say this ignorance is blameless. For ought you not to have known better Ought you not to have taken the pains of procuring better information when it might so easily have been had Ought you to have publicly advanced so heavy charges as these without knowing whether they were true or no

14. Nearly allied to this is the threadbare charge of enthusiasm, with which you frequently and largely compliment us. But as this also is asserted only, and not proved, it falls to the ground of itself. Meantime your asserting it is a plain proof that you know nothing of the men you talk of. Because you know them not, you so boldly say, 'One advantage we have over them, and that is reason.' Nay, that is the very question. I appeal to all mankind whether you have it or no. However, you are sure we have it not, and are never likely to have. For 'reason,' you say, 'cannot do much with an enthusiast, whose first principle is to have nothing to do with reason, but resolve all his religious opinions and notions into immediate inspiration.' Then, by your own account, I am no enthusiast; for I resolve none of my notions into immediate inspiration. I have something to do with reason; perhaps as much as many of those who make no account of my labours. And I am ready to give up every opinion which I cannot by calm, clear reason defend. Whenever, therefore, you will try what you can do by argument, which you have not done yet, I wait your leisure, and will follow you step by step which way soever you lead.

I am almost ashamed (having done it twenty times before) to answer this stale calumny again. But the bold, frontless manner wherein you advance it obliges me so to do. Know then, sir, that you have no authority, either from Scripture or reason, to judge of other men by yourself. If your own conscience convicts you of loving money, of 'casting a sheep's eye at the unrighteous mammon,' humble yourself before God, if haply the thoughts and desires of your heart may be forgiven you. But, blessed be God, my conscience is clear. My heart does not condemn me in this matter. I know, and God knoweth, that I have no desire to load myself with thick clay; that I love money no more than I love the mire in the streets; that I seek it not. And I have it not, any more than suffices for food and raiment, for the plain conveniences of life. I pay no court to it at all, or to those that have it, either with cunning or without. For myself, for my own use, I raise no contributions, either great or small. The weekly contributions of our community (which are freely given, not squeezed out of any) as well as the gifts and offerings at the Lord's Table never come into my hands. I have no concern with them, not so much as the beholding them with my eyes. They are received every week by the stewards of the Society, men of well-known character in the world; and by them constantly distributed within the week to those whom they know to be in real necessity. As to the 'very large oblations wherewith I am favoured by persons of better figure and fortune,' I know nothing of them. Be so kind as to refresh my memory by mentioning a few of their names. I have the happiness of knowing some of great figure and fortune, some right honourable persons. But if I were to say that all of them together had given me seven pounds in seven years I should say more than I could make good. And yet I doubt not but they would freely give me anything I wanted; but, by the blessing of God, I want nothing that they can give. I want only more of the spirit of love and power and of an healthful mind.

I want only more of the spirit of love and power and of an healthful mind. As to those 'many believing wives who practice pious frauds on their unbelieving husbands,' I know them not--no, not one of that kind; therefore I doubt the fact. If you know any such, be pleased to give us their names and places of abode. Otherwise you must bear the blame of being the lover if not the maker of a lie. Perhaps you will say, 'Why, a great man said the same thing but a few years ago.' What if he did Let the frog swell as long as he can, he will not equal the ox. He might say many things, all circumstances considered, which will not come well from you, as you have neither his wit, nor sense, nor learning nor age, nor dignity. Tibi parvula res est: Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est. [Horace's Epistles, 1. vii. 98. Wesley here gives a free and edged translation: 'You are not upon a level with Bishop Warburton. Let every man know his own size.' See next letter.] If you fall upon people that meddle not with you, without either fear or wit, you may possibly find they have a little more to say for themselves than you was aware of. I 'follow peace with all men'; but if a man set upon me without either rhyme or reason, I think it my duty to defend myself so far as truth and justice permit. Yet still I am (if a poor enthusiast may not be so bold as to style himself your brother), reverend sir, Your servant for Christ's sake. [5] November 26, 1762.

MY LORD,--Your Lordship well observes, 'To employ buffoonery in the service of religion is to violate the majesty of truth and to deprive it of a fair hearing. To examine, men must be serious.' (Preface, p. 11.) I will endeavour to be so in all the following pages; and the rather, not only because I am writing to a person who is so far and in so many respects my superior, but also because of the importance of the subject: for is the question only, What I am a madman or a man in his senses a knave or an honest man No; this is only brought in by way of illustration. The question is of the office and operation of the Holy Spirit; with which the doctrine of the New Birth, and indeed the whole of real religion, is connected. On a subject of so deep concern I desire to be serious as death. But, at the same time, your Lordship will permit me to use great plainness. And this I am the more emboldened to do because, by naming my name, your Lordship, as it were, condescends to meet me on even ground. I shall consider first what your Lordship advances concerning me, and then what is advanced concerning the operations of the Holy Spirit. 1. First. Concerning me. It is true I am here dealing in crambe repetita, [Juvenal's Satires, vii. 154: 'Twice-cooked cabbage.'] reciting objections which have been urged and answered an hundred times. But as your Lordship is pleased to repeat them again, I am obliged to repeat the answers. Your Lordship begins: 'If the false prophet pretend to some extraordinary measure of the Spirit, we are directed to try that spirit by James iii. 17' (page 117). I answer: (1) (as I have done many times before) I do not pretend to any extraordinary measure of the Spirit. I pretend to no other measure of it than may be claimed by every Christian minister. (2) Where are we directed to 'try prophets' by this text How does it appear that it was given for any such purpose It is certain we may try Christians hereby whether they are real or pretended ones; but I know not that either St. James or any other inspired writer gives us the least hint of trying prophets thereby.

But what does all this prove Not that I claim any gift above other men, but only that I believe God now hears and answers prayer even beyond the ordinary course of nature; otherwise the clerk was in the right who, in order to prevent the fanaticism of his rector, told him, 'Sir, you should not pray for fair weather yet; for the moon does not change till Saturday.' While the two accounts (pages 143, 146) which are next recited lay before me, a venerable old clergyman calling upon me, I asked him, 'Sir, would you advise me to publish these strange relations or not' He answered, 'Are you sure of the facts' I replied, 'As sure as that I am alive.' 'Then,' said he, 'publish them in God's name, and be not careful about the event.' The short of the case is this. Two young women were tormented of the devil in an uncommon manner. Several serious persons desired my brother and me to pray with them. We with many others did; and they were delivered. But where meantime were 'the exorcisms in form, according to the Roman fashion' I never used them; I never saw them; I know nothing about them. 'Such were the blessings which Mr. Wesley distributed among his friends. For his enemies he had in store the judgements of Heaven.' (Page 144.) Did I then ever distribute or profess to distribute these Do I claim any such power This is the present question. Let us calmly consider the eight quotations brought to prove it.

'To know the true character of Methodism.' The present point is to know the true character of John Wesley. Now, in order to know this we need not inquire what others were before he was born. All, therefore, that follows of old Precisians, Puritans, and Independents may stand just as it is. (Pages 184-6.) But 'Mr. Wesley wanted to be persecuted' (page 187). As this is averred over and over, I will explain myself upon it once for all. I never desired or wanted to be persecuted. Lives there who loves his pain I love and desire to 'live peaceably with all men.' 'But persecution would not come at his call.' However, it came uncalled; and more than once or twice it was not 'mock persecution.' It was not only the huzzas of the mob: showers of stones are something more than huzzas. And whosoever saw the mob either at Walsall or Cork (to instance in no more) saw that they were not 'in jest,' but in great earnest, eagerly athirst, not for sport, as you suppose, but for blood. But though I do not desire persecution, I expect it. I must, if I believe St. Paul: 'All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution' (2 Tim. iii. 12); either sooner or later, more or less, according to the wise providence of God. But I believe 'all these things work together for good to them that love God.' And from a conviction of this they may even rejoice when they are 'persecuted for righteousness' sake.' Yet, as I seldom 'complain of ill treatment,' so I am never 'dissatisfied with good ' (page 188). But I often wonder at it; and I once expressed my wonder nearly in the words of the old Athenian--'What have we done that the world should be so civil to us' [See letter of July 18, 1747.] You conclude the head: 'As he who persecutes is but the tool of him that invites persecution' (I know not who does), 'the crime finally comes home to him who set the rioter at work' (page 191). And is this all the proof that I am not peaceable Then let all men judge if the charge is made good.

I neither affirm nor deny it. (6) The true account of Lucy Godshall is this: 'I buried the body of Lucy Godshall, After pressing toward the mark for more than two years, since she had known the pardoning love of God, she was for some time weary and faint in her mind, till I put her out of the bands. God blessed this greatly to her soul, so that in a short time she was admitted again. Soon after, being at home, she felt the love of God in an unusual manner poured into her heart. She fell down upon her knees and delivered up her soul and body into the hands of God. In the instant the use of all her limbs was taken away and she was in a burning fever. For three days she mightily praised God and rejoiced in Him all the day long. She then cried out, "Now Satan hath desired to have me that he may sift me as wheat." Immediately darkness and heaviness fell upon her, which continued till Saturday, the 4th instant. On Sunday the light shone again upon her heart. About ten in the evening one said to her, "Jesus is ready to receive your soul." She said, "Amen! Amen!" closed her eyes, and died.' (Journal, iii. 44-5.) Is this brought as a proof of my inexorableness or of my dooming men to perdition (7) 'I found Nicholas Palmer in great weakness of body and heaviness of spirit. We wrestled with God in his behalf; and our labour was not in vain. His soul was comforted, and a few hours after he quietly fell asleep.' A strange proof this likewise, either of inexorableness or of 'dooming men to perdition.' Therefore this charge too stands totally unsupported. Here is no proof of my unmercifulness yet.

'His followers are directed by inward feelings, the impulses of an inflamed fancy' (no more than they are directed by the Alcoran); 'his opposers by the Scripture.' What, while they are cursing, swearing, blaspheming, beating and maiming men that have done them no wrong, and treating women in a manner too shocking to be repeated (2) The next proof is very extraordinary. My words are, 'I was with two persons, who, I doubt, are properly enthusiasts: for, first, they think to attain the end without the means, which is enthusiasm properly so called. Again, they think themselves inspired of God, and are not. But false imaginary inspiration is enthusiasm. That theirs is only imaginary inspiration appears hence--it contradicts the law and the testimony.' (Page 221.) Now, by what art of man can this be made a proof of my partiality Why, thus: 'These are wise words. But what do they amount to Only to this--that these two persons would not take out their patents of inspiration from his office.' But what proof is there of this round assertion Truly, none at all. Full as extraordinary is the third proof of my partiality. 'Miss Gr-- [Probably Miss Gregory. See Journal, ii. 430d, iii. 46-7.] told Mrs. Sparrow Mr. Wesley was a Papist. Upon this Miss Gr--is anathematized. And we are told that in consequence she had lately been raving mad, and as such was tied down in her bed. Yet all these circumstances of madness have befallen his favourite saints, whom he has vindicated from the opprobrium.' (Page 222.)

The passage in my Journal stands thus: 'Mrs. Sparrow told me two or three nights since, "Miss Gr-- met me and said, I assure you Mr. Wesley is a Papist." Perhaps I need observe no more upon this than that Miss Gr-- had lately been raving mad in consequence of a fever (not of an anathema, which never had any being); that as such she was tied down in her bed; and as soon as she was suffered to go abroad went to Mr. Whitefield to inquire of him whether she was not a Papist. But he quickly perceived she was only a lunatic, the nature of her disorder soon betraying itself.' Certainly, then, my allowing her to be mad is no proof of my partiality. I will allow every one to be so who is attended with 'all these circumstances of madness.' (4) 'He pronounces sentence of enthusiasm upon another, and tells us wherefore without any disguise: "Here I took leave of a poor, mad, original enthusiast, who had been scattering lies in every quarter."' [See Journal, iii. 181-2. The asylum in Box (Wilts.) adjoined the churchyard. The parson's fee for the burial of a lunatic was one penny; three pence for a sane person.] It was the famous John Adams, since confined at Box, whose capital lie (the source of the rest) was that he was a prophet greater than Moses or any of the Apostles. And is the pronouncing him a madman a proof of my partiality (5) 'I had much conversation with Mr. Simpson, an original enthusiast I desired him in the evening to give an exhortation. He did so, and spoke many good things in a manner peculiar to himself'--without order or connexion, head or tail, and in a language very near as Mystical as that of Jacob Behmen. 'When he had done, I summed up what he had said, methodizing and explaining it. Oh what pity it is this well-meaning man should ever speak without an interpreter!' (Page 223.)

But how is this to prove prevarication 'Why, on a sudden he directly revokes all he had advanced. He says: "I told them they were not to judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by common report, or by their own inward feelings--no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revelations supposed to be made to the soul, any more than by their tears or any involuntary effects wrought upon their bodies. I warned them that all these things were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature; they might be from God or they might not, and were therefore not simply to be relied on any more than simply to be condemned, but to be tried by a farther rule, to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony." Now, is not this a formal recantation of what he had said just above' (Page 235.) Nothing less, as I will show in two minutes to every calm, impartial man. What I say now I have said any time this thirty years; I have never varied therefrom for an hour: 'Everything disputable is to be brought to the only certain test, "the law and the testimony."' 'But did not you talk just now of visions and dreams' Yes; but not as of a test of anything: only as a channel through which God is sometimes pleased to convey 'love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance,' the indisputable fruit of His Spirit; and these, we may observe, wherever they exist, must be inwardly felt. Now, where is the prevarication where the formal recantation They are vanished into air.

But here is more proof: 'At length he gives up all these divine agitations to the devil. "I inquired," says he, "into the case of those who had lately cried out aloud during the preaching. I found this had come upon every one of them in a moment, without any previous notice. In that moment they dropped down, lost all their strength, and were seized with violent pain. Some said they felt as if a sword were running through them; others as if their whole body was tearing in pieces. These symptoms I can no more impute to any natural cause than to the Spirit of God. I make no doubt but it was Satan tearing them as they were coming to Christ."' (Page 236.) 'Now, these were the very symptoms which he had before ascribed to the Spirit of God' (page 237). Never in my life. Indeed, some of them I never met with before. Those outward symptoms which I had met with before, bodily agitations in particular, I did not ascribe to the Spirit of God, but to the natural union of the soul and body. And those symptoms which I now ascribe to the devil I never ascribed to any other cause. The second proof of my prevarication or hypocrisy is therefore just as conclusive as the first. 3. Now for the third: 'Mr. Wesley before spoke contemptuously of orthodoxy to take in the sectaries. But when he would take off Churchmen, then orthodoxy is the unum necessarium.' Did I ever say so No more than, in the other extreme, speak contemptuously of it. 'Yes, you say, "I described the plain, old religion of the Church of England, which is now almost everywhere spoken against under the new name of Methodism."' Very well; and what shadow of prevarication is here May I not still declare the plain, old religion of the Church of England, and yet very consistently aver that right opinion is a very slender part of it 4. The next passage, I am sorry to say, is neither related with seriousness nor truth: 'We have seen him inviting persecution.' Never; though I 'rejoiced,' in the instance alleged, at having an opportunity of calling a multitude of the most abandoned sinners to repentance.

'Friday, December 2. I proposed to set out for Carolina about noon. But about ten the Magistrates sent for me, and told me I must not go out of the province; for I had not answered the allegations laid against me. I replied, "I have appeared at six or seven courts in order to answer them. But I was not suffered so to do." After a few more words, I said, "You use me very ill; and so you do the Trustees. You know your business, and I know mine." 'In the afternoon they published an order forbidding any to assist me in going out of the province. But I knew I had no more business there. So as soon as Evening Prayer was over, the tide then serving, I took boat at the Bluff for Carolina.' This is the plain account of the matter. I need only add a remark or two on the pleasantry of my censurer. 'He had recourse as usual to his revelations: "I consulted my friends whether God did not call me to England"' (page 242). Not by revelations-- these were out of the question; but by clear, strong reasons. 'The Magistrate soon quickened his pace by declaring him an enemy to the public peace.' No; that senseless assertion of Mr. Causton made me go neither sooner nor later. 'The reader has seen him long languish for persecution.' What, before November 1737 I never languished for it either before or since. But I submit to what pleases God. 'To hide his poltroonery in a bravado, he gave public notice of his apostolical intention' (page 243). Kind and civil! I may be excused from taking notice of what follows. It is equally serious and genteel. 'Had his longings for persecution been without hypocrisy.' The same mistake throughout. I never longed or professed to long for it at all. But if I had professed it ever since I returned from Georgia, what was done before I returned could not prove that profession to be hypocrisy. So all this ribaldry serves no end; only to throw much dirt, if haply some may stick.

'The third part of this office is to lead, direct, and govern us in our actions and conversations. "If we live in the Spirit," quickened by His renovation, we must also "walk in the Spirit," following His direction, led by His manuduction. We are also animated and acted by the Spirit of God, who giveth "both to will and to do." 'And "as many as are thus led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God" (Rom. viii. 14). Moreover, that this direction may prove more effectual, we are guided in our prayers by the same Spirit, according to the promise, "I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication" (Zech. xii. 10). Whereas, then, "this is the confidence we have in Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He heareth us"; and whereas "we know not what we should pray for as we ought, the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom. viii. 26). "And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God" (verse 27). From which intercession (made for all true Christians) He hath the name of the Paraclete given Him by Christ, who said, "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete" (John xiv. 16, 26). For "if any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," saith St. John. "Who maketh intercession for us," saith St. Paul (Rom. viii. 34). And we have "another Paraclete," saith our Saviour (John xiv. 16), "which also maketh intercession for us," saith St. Paul (Rom. viii. 27). A Paraclete, then, in the notion of the Scriptures, is an Intercessor.

'It is also the office of the Holy Ghost to assure us of the adoption of sons, to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God towards us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inheritance. "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And, because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father; the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." As, therefore, we are born again by the Spirit, and receive from Him our regeneration, so we are also by the same Spirit assured of our adoption. Because, being "sons, we are also heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ," by the same Spirit we have the pledge, or rather the earnest, of our inheritance. "For He which establisheth us in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of His Spirit in our hearts; so that we are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance." The Spirit of God, as given unto us in this life, is to be looked upon as an earnest, being part of that reward which is promised, and, upon performance of the covenant which God hath made with us, certainly to be received.' [Works, viii. 99-101; Pearson's An Exposition of the Creed, art. VIII. ii. on The Office of the Spirit.] It now rests with your Lordship to take your choice, either to condemn or to acquit both: either your Lordship must condemn Bishop Pearson for an enthusiast, or you must acquit me; for I have his express authority on my side concerning every text which I affirm to belong to all Christians.

To George Merryweather Date: LONDON, January 29, 1767. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1767) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--To suppose a combination, does not avail; to prove it, would cast them at once. You are in the right to lose no time; what is to be done should be done as soon as possible. Delays are never more dangerous than in law proceedings.[See letters of Dec. 20, 1766, and Oct. 6, 1767.] I have no knowledge of Mr. Dunning [John Dunning (1731-83), first Baron Ashburton 1782; Solicitor-General 1768-70. Sir Fletcher Norton (1716-89); Attorney-General 1763, Speaker of the House of Commons 1770, Baron Grantley of Markenfield 1782. Attacked by Junius in Letter 39.] or Sir Fletcher Norton. Only I have lately retained Sir Fletcher in the behalf of Miss Lewen's executors. Peace be with your spirit!--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Peggy Dale Date: PORTPATRICK, March 29, 1767. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1767) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR PEGGY,--Those you mention are Israelites indeed, to whom you will do well to speak with all freedom. A few more in Newcastle are of the same spirit; although they are but few in whom the gold is free from dross. I wish you could help poor Molly Stralliger. I am often afraid for her lest she should be ignorant of Satan's devices and lose all that God had wrought in her. Do you still find a witness in yourself that God has purified your heart from sin Do you never feel any return of pride, or anger, or self-will, or foolish desire Do you steadily endure, seeing Him that is invisible Are you always sensible of His loving presence Are you constantly happy in Him Does He keep you sleeping and waking, and make your very dreams devout O stand fast in glorious liberty! And be sure to remember daily, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Lady Maxwell Date: CORK, June 4, 1767. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1767) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR LADY,--My belief is that a journey to England might be of great service to your health. And it is not improbable you might receive much benefit from the water of the Hot Wells near Bristol. In August I hope to be at Bristol, and again in the latter end of September. My chaise and horses are at Bristol, which you would oblige me much if you would please to use as your own (if you do not bring any with you) during your stay there; for you should if possible ride out daily. My wife, who is at Newcastle, will be exceeding glad to wait upon you there. And if you choose to rest a few days, I should be happy if you would make use of the Orphan House. You would be pleased with the Miss Dales, [See letter of Sept. 29.] and they with you; you and they have drank into one Spirit. Miss Peggy is one of the holiest young women that I have any knowledge of; indeed, I think both the sisters have no desire but to glorify God with their body and with their spirit. You will be so kind as to let me know when you expect to be at Newcastle, and possibly I may meet you there.

As you were providentially called to the place where you now are, I cannot doubt but you will be preserved. But you have need of much prayer and continual watching, or you may insensibly lose what God has given. I am jealous over you; I cannot but be interested in whatever concerns you. I know your tender spirit, your desire to please all for their good, your unwillingness to give pain. And even these amiable dispositions may prove a snare; for how easily may they be carried too far! If you find anything hurts you or draws your soul from God, I conjure you flee for your life! In that case, you must not stand upon ceremony; you must escape without delay. But I hope better things: I hope you are sent to Brisbane, [Her father Thomas Brisbane, lived at Brisbane, in the county of Ayr.] not to receive hurt, but to do good, to grow in grace, to find a deeper communion than ever with Him that gave Himself for you; and to fulfil the joy of, my dear Lady, Your most affectionate friend.

To Peggy Dale Date: ATHLONE, June 18, 1767. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1767) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR PEGGY,--By conversing with you I --should be overpaid for coming two or three hundred miles round about. But how it will be I know not yet. If a ship be ready for Whitehaven, then I shall aim at Whitehaven and Newcastle; otherwise I must sail for Holyhead or Chester. I hope you now again find the inward witness that you are saved from sin. There is a danger in being content without it, into which you may easily reason yourself. You may easily bring yourself to believe that there is no need of it, especially while you are in an easy, peaceful state. But beware of this. The witness of sanctification as well as of justification is the privilege of God's children. And you may have the one always clear as well as the other if you walk humbly and closely with God. In what state do you find your mind now Full of faith and love Praying always Then I hope you always remember, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother.

To Joseph Townsend Date: EDINBURGH, August 1-3, 1767. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1767) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR,--When I saw you here some years since, I could not but admire you, such was your simplicity and godly sincerity. You knew the poor little flock, though a proverb of reproach, were a living people of God. You knew their preachers were messengers of Christ; and you espoused their cause in the face of the sun. You returned to London. You conversed with Mr. Madan and others, most of whom owe the Methodists their own souls also. You came to Edinburgh again. But you did not know the Methodists, unless one or two honourable ones. You had no fellowship with them; you neither joined with them in public nor strengthened their hands in private. You stood aloof from them as though they would have infected you. Nay, you preached just by them at the very hour of their preaching. You lessened their congregations; you threw many of the Society into vain reasonings; you opened many mouths against them; you exceedingly grieved the spirit of the preachers and caused their hands to hang down. Was this well done Was it of a piece with your former conduct Did it do any honour to the gospel Did it do any real good Did it cherish any Christian temper in Mr. Walker or Dr. Erskine [Robert Walker, a minister of the Established Church in Edinburgh, was a friend and correspondent of Lady Glenorchy. He and Erskine preached at the opening of her chapel in Edinburgh on May 8, 1774. For Dr. John Erskine, see letter of April 24, 1765.] Was it a proof of love to me Was it a means of increasing the knowledge or love of God in your own soul Alas, my brother! I know you would do well; but surely herein you have mistaken your way. Do you say, 'Nay, but I have acted right; for the Methodist people are a fallen people and the preachers preach only dry morality. They are in grievous error, denying election, perseverance, and the righteousness of Christ. Therefore their work is at an end, and the work of God which is now wrought is wrought by the awakened clergy. If I had preached in their chapels, I should thereby have abetted all their errors.'

To Mrs. Woodhouse Date: LONDON, December 23, 1767. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1767) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--Your letters are always welcome to me; but especially when they bring me the good news of your welfare. Whereunto you have attained, hold fast without reasonings and disputings. Stand fast in that degree of liberty wherewith Christ has made you free. And continually expect all the residue of His precious promises; even to rejoice evermore, to pray without ceasing, and in everything to give thanks. . . . . . . . leads to God, and generally leaves a solemn awe upon the spirit. The same I would say with regard to that extraordinary influence which you have sometimes felt. By the fruit you shall know from what root it springs. Has it any particular effect on your body or soul If you can inform me of this (and in the most minute manner as to all the circumstances), then I shall be able to form a more certain judgement of it. That Sunday morning you speak of . . . . .was in bed when it came over you I suppose .....

To the Countess of Huntingdon Date: LONDON, January 4, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR LADY,--I am obliged to your Ladyship and to Lady Buchan for such a mark of your regard as I did not at all expect. I purpose to return her Ladyship thanks by this post. That remark is very striking as well as just: If it is the Holy Spirit that bears witness, then all speaking against that witness is one species of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. And when this is done by those who peculiarly profess to honour Him, it must in a peculiar manner grieve that blessed Spirit. Yet I have been lately surprised to observe how many who affirm salvation by faith have lately run into this; running full into Mr. Sandeman's notion that faith is merely an assent to the Bible, and not only undervaluing but even ridiculing the whole experience of the children of God. But so much the more do I rejoice that your Ladyship is still preserved from that spreading contagion, and also enabled plainly and openly to avow the plain, old, simple, unfashionable gospel. I am glad to hear that your Ladyship has thoughts of being soon in town, but sorry that your health is not yet re-established. Yet certainly health we shall have, if health be best. For the Lord still ruleth in heaven and earth. Wishing your Ladyship many happy years, I remain, my dear Lady, Your very affectionate servant.

To Peggy Dale Date: LONDON, January 30, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR PEGGY,--It is a certain truth that the witness of sanctification is a privilege which every one that is sanctified may claim. Yet it is not true that every one that is sanctified does enjoy this. Many who are really sanctified (that is, wholly devoted to God) do not enjoy it as soon as that work is wrought; and many who received it do not retain it, or at the least not constantly. Indeed, they cannot retain it in two cases: either if they do not continue steadily watching unto prayer; or, secondly, if they give way to reasoning, if they let go any parts of 'love's divine simplicity.' I am afraid this was your case: you did not remain simple; you gave way to evil reasoning. But you was as surely sanctified as you was justified. And how soon may you be so again The way, the new and living way, is open! Believe, and enter in!-- I am, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother.

To the Rev. Mr. Plenderlieth Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- [14] NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 23, 1768. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--Some years ago it was reported that I recommended the use of a crucifix to a man under sentence of death. I traced this up to its author, Dr. Stennett, an Anabaptist teacher. He was charged with it. He answered, 'Why, I saw a crucifix in his cell' (a picture of Christ on the cross); 'and I knew Mr. Wesley used to visit him: so I supposed he had brought it.' This is the whole of the matter. Dr. Stennett himself I never yet saw; nor did I ever see such a picture in the cell: and I believe the whole tale is pure invention. I had for some time given up the thought of an interview with Mr. Erskine, when I fell into the company of Dr. Oswald. He said, 'Sir, you do not know Mr. Erskine. I know him perfectly well. Send and desire an hour's conversation with him, and I am sure he will understand you better.' I am glad I did send. I have done my part, and am now entirely satisfied. I am likewise glad that Mr. Erskine has spoke his mind. I will answer with all simplicity, in full confidence of satisfying you and all impartial men. He objects, first, that I attack predestination as subversive of all religion, and yet suffer my followers in Scotland to remain in that opinion. Much of this is true. I did attack predestination eight-and-twenty years ago [See letter of April 30, 1739.]; and I do not believe now any predestination which implies irrespective reprobation. But I do not believe it is necessarily subversive of all religion. I think hot disputes are much more so; therefore I never willingly dispute with any one about it. And I advise all my friends, not in Scotland only, but all over England and Ireland, to avoid all contention on the head, and let every man remain in his own opinion. Can any man of candour blame me for this Is there anything unfair or disingenuous in it

To Henry Brooke Date: SUNDERLAND, May 25, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BRETHREN,--I know not what to say; the accounts I receive from Dublin are so contradictory to each other. In my last to T. Olivers I desired he would go immediately into Waterford Circuit. I wish Mr. Hilton would give me his cool judgement concerning the late transactions. I desire all the money subscribed in Ireland for the payment of the General Debt may be lodged in the hands of George Grant, James Martin, and James Freeman as trustees. But when this amounts to 100, let so much of the Dublin debt be paid without delay. See that you bear one another's burthens.--I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. What is the present debt on Dublin house

I still apprehend this to be scriptural doctrine, confirmed not by a few detached texts, but by the whole tenor of Scripture, and more particularly by the Epistle to the Romans. But if so, the contrary to it must be unsafe, for that general reason, because it is unscriptural. To which one might add this particular reason,--it naturally tends to lull mourners to sleep; to make them cry, 'Peace, peace,' to their souls, 'when there is no peace.' It directly tends to damp and still their convictions, and to encourage them to sit down contented before Christ is revealed to them and before the Spirit witnesses with their spirits that they are the children of God. But it may be asked, 'Will not this discourage mourners' Yes, it will discourage them from stopping where they are; it will discourage them from resting before they have the witness in themselves, before Christ is revealed in them. But it will encourage them to seek Him in the gospel way--to ask till they receive pardon and peace. And we are to encourage them, not by telling them that they are in the favour of God though they do not know it (such a word as this we should never utter in a congregation at the peril of our souls), but we should assure them, 'Every one that seeketh findeth, every one that asketh receiveth.' If a man does not know the pardoning love of God for himself, I would ask, How or by what means are you to know it for him Has God given you to search the heart and try the reins of your hearers Can you infallibly know the real state of that man's mind Can you be certain that no secret sin stands between God and his soul Are you sure he does not regard iniquity in his heart I am afraid you have not been sufficiently wary in this, but have given occasion to them who sought occasion. But this is not all. I doubt you did not see the hand of God in Shimei's tongue. 'Unto you it was given to suffer' a little of what you extremely wanted--obloquy and evil report. But you did not either acknowledge the gift or the Giver. You saw only Mr. T. Olivers, not God. O Jemmy, you do not know yourself.

O Jemmy, you do not know yourself. You cannot bear to be continually steeped in poison --in the esteem and praise of men; therefore I tremble at your stay in Dublin. It is the most dangerous place for you under heaven! All I can say is, God can preserve you in the fiery furnace, and I hope He will.--I am, dear Jemmy, Yours affectionately.

To Mrs. Hall Date: KINGSWOOD, October 6, I 768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR PATTY,--You do not consider, money never stays with me: it would burn me if it did. I throw it out of my hands as soon as possible, lest it should find a way into my heart. Therefore you should have spoken to me while I was in London, and before Miss Lewen's money flew away. [Wesley had settled some disputed points with Miss Lewen's father, and received on Nov. 2, 1767, the 1,000 legacy which she left him. See Journal, v. 226-7; Stamp's Orphan House, pp. 111-112; Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 589-90.] However, I know not but I may still spare you five pounds, provided you will not say, 'I will never ask you again,' because that is more than you can tell; and you must not promise more than you can perform. I scarce know what to say with regard to the other affair. It is a delicate point. Is she sure of her temporal affairs Remember her whom Lawrence Coughlan [See letters of Aug. 27, 1768, and Feb. 25, 1785 (to John Stretton).] married and ruined. Let me not have another blot of the same kind. Let her take care to tread upon firm ground. Oh how busy are mankind! and about what trifles! Things that pass away as a dream! Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, but to love and serve God.--I am, dear Patty, Your ever affectionate.

To Jane Hilton Date: BRISTOL, October 8, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--You need never be afraid of 'wearying my patience,' unless it be by your silence. There is no danger of your writing too often or too much; whatever comes from you is welcome. I can easily believe the description you give is just; therefore there are only two particulars remaining: First, Have you both the consent of your parents Without this there is seldom a blessing. Secondly, Is he able to keep you I mean in such a manner as you have lived hitherto. Otherwise, remember I When poverty comes in at the door, love flies out at the window. Do you find as much as ever of the spirit of prayer and of continual watchfulness Are you always sensible of the presence of God in the greatest hurry of business Have you power over wandering thoughts And do you find as much union of spirit as ever with, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother.

To John Mason Date: LONDON, November 15, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--For one preacher to stay long at one place is neither profitable for him nor for the people. If there is only one preacher at Limerick, he must duly visit the country Societies. As David Evans is now gone over to Waterford, Brother Bourke will be at liberty. So either he or you should go without delay and relieve John Hilton at Londonderry. If any deny the witness of sanctification and occasion disputing in the select society, let him or her meet therein no more. I hope the singing goes on well.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Joseph Benson Date: SHOREHAM, December 22, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR JOSEPH,--You do not quite take my meaning yet. [See letter of Dec. 4.] When I recommend to any one a method or scheme of study, I do not barely consider this or that book separately but in conjunction with the rest. And what I recommend I know; I know both the style and sentiments of each author, and how he will confirm or illustrate what goes before and prepare for what comes after. Now, supposing Mr. Stonehouse, [Dr. James Stonehouse, lecturer of All Saints', Bristol. See Tyerman's Whitefield, ii. 195; and for James Rouquet, letter of March 30, 1761.] Rouquet, or any other to have ever so great learning and judgement, yet he does not enter into my plan. He does not comprehend my views nor keep his eye fixed on the same point. Therefore I must insist upon it, the interposing other books between these till you have read them through is not good husbandry. It is not making your time and pains go so far as they might go. If you want more books, let me recommend more, who best understand my own scheme. And do not ramble, however learned the persons may be that advise you so to do. This does indulge curiosity, but does not minister to real improvement, as a stricter method would do. No; you would gain more clearness and strength of judgement by reading those Latin and Greek books (compared with which most of the English are whipped syllabub) than by fourscore modern books. I have seen the proof, as none of your Bristol friends have done or can do. Therefore I advise you again, keep to your plan (though this implies continual self-denial) if you would improve your understanding to the highest degree of which it is capable.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother.

To Hannah Ball Date: LONDON, December 24, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- Nothing can be more certain than that God is willing to give always what He gives once, and that therefore, whatever you experience now, you may enjoy to your life's end. . . . Watch and pray, and you will not enter into temptation. . . . Be the success more or less, never be weary of well doing. In due time you shall reap if you faint not. . . .

To Edward Bolton Date: LONDON, February 12, 1769. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1769) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--A preaching-house can't be too light or too airy. Therefore your windows must be large. And let them be sashes, opening downward; otherwise the air coming in would give the people cold. I do not know but it might be best to have either a paved or a boarded floor. And see that whatever is done be done neat and strong. It is the Lord's work, and He will provide. I will give you ten pounds towards it; for which you may draw upon Mr. Franks when you please. [See Journal, v. 345.] I hope my dear Nancy is recovered from her cold. Don't let her omit riding. [See letters of Feb. 4, 1769, and Jan. 25, 1770.] And make the best use of both her advice and example; for you know not how soon she may be taken away.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Philothea Briggs Date: LONDON, February 25, 1769. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1769) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR PHILLY,--You have no need to take thought for the morrow: as your day so your strength will be. With regard to little compliances, I should be of Miss March's mind; only, if we begin, we know not where we shall stop. If you plead your conscience for not complying with anything, you must use the most mild and respectful expressions you possibly can, and God will order all things well. You will want no help which is in the power of, dear Philly, Yours affectionately.

To Lady Maxwell Date: LONDON, March 3, 1769. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1769) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR LADY,--To be incapable of sympathizing with the distressed is not a desirable state. Nor would one wish to extirpate either sorrow or any other of our natural passions. And yet it is both possible and highly desirable to attain the same experience with the Marquis De Renty, who on occasion of his lady's illness told those who inquired how he could bear it, 'I cannot say but my nature is deeply affected with the apprehension of so great a loss. And yet I feel such a full acquiescence in the will of God, that, were it proper, I could dance and sing.' I have heard my mother say, 'I have frequently been as fully assured that my father's spirit was with me as if I had seen him with my eyes.' [Dr. Annesley died in 1696, just before his daughter moved from South Ormsby to Epworth.] But she did not explain herself any farther. I have myself many times found on a sudden so lively an apprehension of a deceased friend that I have sometimes turned about to look; at the same time I have felt an uncommon affection for them. But I never had anything of this kind with regard to any but those that died in faith. In dreams I have had exceeding lively conversations with them; and I doubt not but they were then very near. It gives me pleasure to hear that you did not neglect our own preaching in order to attend any other. The hearing Mr. F. at other times I do not know that any could blame; unless you found it unsettled your mind, or weakened your expectation of an entire deliverance from sin. And this, I apprehend, it did not. You never 'take up too much of my time.' To converse with you even in this imperfect way is both agreeable and useful to me. I love your spirit, and it does me good. I trust God will still give you that hunger and thirst after righteousness till you are satisfied therewith. And who knows how soon--I am, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant.

To Mrs. Bennis Date: DUBLIN, July 24, 1769. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1769) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--If the reading over your papers has no other effect, this it certainly has--it makes me love you abundantly better than I did before: I have now a more intimate knowledge of you; I enter more into your spirit, your tempers and hopes and fears and desires, all which tends to endear you to me. It is plain one of your constant enemies, and the most dangerous of all, is evil reasoning. Accordingly the thing which you chiefly want is Christian simplicity. Brother Bourke [The Assistant at Limerick.] and you should carefully watch over each other in that respect, and let each deal faithfully with the other; let there be no reserve between you; encourage one another also to pray for and expect the continual and direct witness of the Spirit. They are by no means the best part of our preachers in any sense who doubt of this. I know but of one who had experienced the work that doubted concerning the witness-- namely, James Oddie [See letter of March 29, 1766.]; and I am afraid that for some time he has experienced neither the one nor the other. Two of your written books I send back by that lovely woman Jenny Moore [Mrs. Moore, of Augher. She received these safely after some delay. See Crookshank's Methodism in Ireland, i. 200.]; the third I must borrow a little longer. My dear friend, remember Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Woodhouse Date: BRISTOL, October 4, 1769. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1769) Author: John Wesley --- How long is it since Mr. Whitelamb died What disease did he die of Did he lie ill for any time Do you know any circumstances preceding or attending his death Oh, why did he not die forty years ago, while he knew in whom he had believed! Unsearchable are the counsels of God, and His ways past finding out.

To Joseph Benson Date: LONDON, November 19, 1769. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1769) Author: John Wesley --- Indeed, Joseph, I am not well pleased at all. You seem quite ruffled and discomposed because a story was invented of you (if it was from invention; for your taking it so deeply makes me fear it was not). I thought it kindest to reprove you rather in jest than in earnest, and this very thing you take ill! What, are you seeking to pick a quarrel with me Well, if you require me to be serious, I will be serious. I am ashamed you should have it to learn still that if you are a Christian you are to expect men will say all manner of evil of you falsely. So they have done of me for at least these forty years. You was not of this spirit when you came into that House. [Wesley thought Kingswood was spoiling him.] Honour and power have done you no good; I am sorry for you, but I know not how to help you. If you will go, you must go.

To Mrs. Crosby Date: LONDON, January 1, 1770. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1770) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--Whereunto you have attained hold fast. You never need let it go. Nothing is more certain than that God is willing to give always what He gives once. If, therefore, He now gives you power to yield Him your whole heart, you may confidently expect the continuance of that power till your spirit returns to God, provided you continue watching unto prayer, denying yourself, and taking up your cross daily. Only beware of evil reasoning! Hang upon Him that loves you as a little child; living to-day, and trusting Him for to-morrow.[See letter of Jan. 2.]--I am, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother. To a Nobleman: The Earl of Dartmouth (?) [2] [January 1], 1770. DEAR SIR,--I bless God that you are not disgusted at the great plainness with which I wrote. Indeed, I know not but it might be termed roughness; which was owing partly to the pressure of mind I then felt, and partly to my being straitened for time: otherwise I might have found softer expressions. I am thankful likewise for your openness; which obliges me to be open and unreserved, and to say all I mean, and that in the most simple manner, on each of the articles that lie before us. I must do this even with regard to my fellow labourers, lest I should seem to mean more than I do. But I am sensible this is a tender point, and one so extremely difficult to treat upon that I should not venture to say one word did I not know to whom I speak. What I mean is this: From many little circumstances which have occurred, I have been afraid (just so far it went) that those clergymen with whom you are most acquainted were jealous of your being acquainted with me. I was the more afraid when I heard the sudden exclamation of one whom you well know, 'Good God! Mr. Wesley is always speaking well of these gentlemen, and they can never speak well of him.' But I am entirely satisfied by that full declaration which you make: 'I do not know of any impression that has been made upon me to your disadvantage.'

Some time ago, since you went hence, I heard a circumstance which gave me a good deal of concern--namely, that the College or Academy in Georgia had swallowed up the Orphan House. Shall I give my judgement without being asked? Methinks friendship requires I should. Are there not, then, two points which come in view--a point of mercy and a point of justice? With regard to the former, may it not be inquired, Can anything on earth be a greater charity than to bring up orphans? What is a college or an academy compared to this? unless you could have such a college as perhaps is not upon earth. I know the value of learning, and am more in danger of prizing it too much than too little. But still, I cannot place the giving it to five hundred students, on a level with saving the bodies, if not the souls too, of five hundred orphans. But let us pass on from the point of mercy to that of justice. You had land given and collected money for an Orphan House; are you at liberty to apply this to any other purpose--at least, while there are any orphans in Georgia left? I just touch upon this, though it is an important point, and leave it to your own consideration whether part of it at least might not properly be applied to carry on the original design. In speaking thus freely on so tender a subject, I have given you a fresh proof of the sincerity with which I am Your ever affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Marston Date: BROADMARSTON, March 16, 1770. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1770) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--I want to ask you several questions. At what time and in what manner was you justified? Did you from that time find a constant witness of it? When and how was you convinced of the necessity of sanctification? When did you receive it, and in what manner? Did you then find the witness of it? Has it been clear ever since? Have you not found any decay since that time? Do you now find as much life as ever you did? Can you give God your whole heart? In what sense do you 'pray without ceasing and in everything give thanks'? Do you find a testimony in yourself that all your words and actions please Him? You have no need to be nice or curious in answering these questions. You have no occasion to set your words in order; but speak to me just as you would do to one of your sisters. The language of love is the best of all. One truly says,-- There is in love a sweetness ready penned: Copy out only that, and save expense. [George Herbert's The Temple, 'Jordan.'] You have love in your heart; let that teach you words. Out of the abundance of the heart let the mouth speak. I shall then know better how to advise you. I have a great concern for you, and a desire that you should never lose anything which God has wrought, but should receive a full reward. Stand fast in the name of the Lord and in the power of His might!-- I am Your affectionate brother. You may direct to me at the preaching-house in Manchester

To Mary Bishop Date: LONDON, June 20, 1770. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1770) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR MISS BISHOP,--At present you are exactly in your place; and I trust no temptation, inward or outward, shall ever induce you to depart from the work, to which God has called you. You must expect to be pushed to both extremes by turns--self-confidence and too much diffidence. But it is certain the former is the more dangerous of the two; and you need all the power of God to save you from it. And He will save you to the uttermost, provided you still retain the sense of your poverty and helplessness. It is a good prayer, Show me, as my soul can bear, The depth of inbred sin! And just so He will deal with you; for He remembers that you are but dust. But you should not wait to be thus and thus convinced in order to be renewed in love. No: pray now for all the mind which was in Christ; and you shall have more and more conviction as it pleases Him. Mr. Spencer [See letters of Sept. 13, 1769, and Oct. 12, 1771.] and Glynne are of excellent spirits, notwithstanding their opinion. I hardly know their fellows. Love is all we want; let this fill our hearts, and it is enough. Peace be with your spirit,--I am Your affectionate brother.

To George Merryweather Date: YORK, June 24, 1770. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1770) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. Augustus Toplady I know well. But I do not fight with chimney-sweepers. He is too dirty a writer for me to meddle with. I should only foul my fingers. I read his title-page, and troubled myself no farther. I leave him to Mr. Sellon. He cannot be in better hands. [See letter of Feb. 21 to Walter Sellon.] As long as you are seeking and expecting to love God with all your heart, so long your soul will live.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To George Merryweather Date: LONDON, August 7, 1770. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1770) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have the credit of stationing the preachers. But many of them go where they will go for all me. For instance, I have marked down James Oddie and John Nelson for Yarm Circuit the ensuing year. Yet I am not certain that either of them will come. They can give twenty reasons for going elsewhere. Mr. Murlin says he must be in London. 'Tis certain he has a mind to be there. Therefore so it must be: for you know a man of fortune is master of his own notions.--I am, with love to Sister Merryweather and Mr. Waldy, [See letter of Jan. 24, 1760.] Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Marston Date: ST. IVES, August 26, 1770. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1770) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--Your last gave me a particular satisfaction, because I was jealous over you. I was afraid lest you, like some others, should have received that dangerous opinion that we must sometimes be in darkness. Wherever you are, oppose this, and encourage all who now walk in the light to expect not only the continuance but the increase of it unto the perfect day. Certain it is that, unless we grieve the Holy Spirit, He will never take away what He has given. On the contrary, He will add to it continually, till we come to the measure of the full stature of Christ. I am glad the select society meets constantly. See that you speak freely to each other. And do not speak of your joys and comforts only; this is well-pleasing to flesh and blood: but speak also of your sorrows and weaknesses and temptations; this is well-pleasing to God, and will be a means of knitting you together by a bond that shall never be broken. I hope you lose no opportunity of speaking a word for God, either to them that know Him or them that do not. Why should you lose any time? Time is short. Work your work betimes! To-day receive more grace and use it! Peace be with your spirit!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Joseph Benson Date: LONDON, January 7, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH,--I am surprised at nothing. When persons are governed by passion rather than reason, we can expect little good. I cannot see that there was anything blameable in your behaviour. You could not do or say less with a clear conscience. I suppose you have: given Mr. Fletcher a plain account of what has passed; although he will hardly be able to set things right. Which way do you think to steer your course now You are welcome to stay at Kingswood till you are better provided for. I shall write for Mr. Mather [Alexander Mather, then Assistant in the Bristol Circuit. See Wesley's veterans, ii. 107.] to go into Brecknockshire. You may always be sure of any service which is in the power of, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother.

To Joseph Benson Date: LONDON, January 21, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH,--It was of their own mere motion that the students, when I was in Wales, desired me to come and spend a little time with them. I had no thought or desire so to do, having work enough upon my hands. When Mr. Ireland [See letters of Oct. 23 and Nov. 4, 1759.] asked me why I did not go thither in August, [He was in Bristol from Aug. 13 to 20.] I answered, 'Because my Lady had written to me to the contrary.' But I do not remember that I showed him her letter; I believe I did not. I know not why you should not keep the rest of your terms at Oxford and take a Bachelor's degree. Only if you should be pressed in spirit to give yourself up to the work of God sooner, I think you must follow your own conscience. Write quite freely to, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother.

To Philothea Briggs Date: GALWAY, May 28, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR PHILLY,--Your concern is with the present moment; your business is to live to-day. In every sense let the morrow take thought for the things of itself. It is true the full assurance of hope excludes all doubt of our final salvation; but it does not and cannot continue any longer than we walk closely with God. And it does not include any assurance of our future behaviour; neither do I know any word in all the Bible which gives us any authority to look for a testimony of this kind. But just so far you may certainly go with regard to the present moment,-- I want the witness, Lord, That all I do is right, According to Thy will and word, Well-pleasing in Thy sight. Seriously and steadily, my dear maid, aim at this, and you will not be disappointed of your hope. With regard to the impression you speak of, I am in doubt whether it be not a temptation from the enemy. It may occasion many wrong tempers; it may feed both pride and uncharitableness. And the Bible gives us no authority to think ill of any one, but from plain, undeniable, overt acts. In the Thoughts upon a Single Life [Published in 1765. See Works, xi. 456-63.] you have what has been my deliberate judgement for many years. I have not yet seen any reason to alter it, though I have heard abundance of objections. I do not know whether your particular case [See letter of May 2 to her.] be an exception to the general rule. It is true your temper is both lively and unstable, and your passions are naturally strong. But that is not much: the grace of God can totally subdue the most stubborn nature. So far, then, you may certainly go. You may now devote yourself to God soul and body in your present state, and resolve never to alter it--without strong and urgent reasons. Of the weight of those reasons likewise, not yourself but your most spiritual friends should judge.

To Mary Bishop Date: DUBLIN, July 20, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--For your own satisfaction I send you this [See letter of July 10.]; but I wish you would not show it before the Conference. If the Calvinists do not or will not understand me, I understand myself. And I do not contradict anything which I have written within these thirty years. You understand me right, and express more at large the very thing I mean. I know not that any one could express it more justly in the same number of words. Poor Mr. Shirley's triumph will be short. Peace be with your spirit!--My dear sister, adieu!

To Mrs. Savage Date: BRISTOL, September 19, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--A report was spread abroad of my coming to Broadmarston and several other places; but I know not what was the occasion of it. I am now expected in the southern parts of the kingdom, and my course has been for several years as fixed as that of the sun. Mr. Ellis is a steady, experienced man, and a sound preacher. Wherever he is the work of our Lord prospers in his hand; and the more so as he is a lover of discipline, without which the best preaching is of little use. I advise you to speak to him as freely as possible, and he will be made profitable to your soul. Your late trials were intended to give you a deeper sense of your poverty and helplessness. But see that you cast not away that confidence which hath great recompense of reward. Cleave to Him with your whole heart, and all is well.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Hannah Ball Date: PORTSMOUTH, October 4, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--The being 'sealed by the Spirit' in the full sense of the word I take to imply two things: first, the receiving the whole image of God, the whole mind which was in Christ, as the wax receives the whole impression of the seal when it is strongly and properly applied; secondly, the full assurance of hope, or a clear and permanent confidence of being with God in glory. Either of these may be given (and sometimes is, though not frequently) separate from the other. When both are joined together, then I believe they constitute that seal of the Spirit. But even this admits of various degrees. A degree of it, I trust, you have. Watch and pray! Do and suffer the whole will of Him that calleth you; and He will supply whatever is wanting.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Philothea Briggs Date: LONDON, November 3, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR PHILLY,--I am always well pleased to see and hear from you. I answer you, more or less fully, as I have time. Neither do I know how to advise Nancy Greenwood; although I think he is free to marry. Rollin was a pious man and a fine historian. If you read one volume, you would feel whether it enlivened or deadened your soul. The same trial you may make as to serious poetry. Very probably this would enliven your soul; and certainly the volumes of Philosophy may, as Galen entitles his description of the human body, 'An Hymn to the Creator.' Temporal business need not interrupt your communion with God, though it varies the manner of it. It is certain every promise has a condition; yet that does not make the promise of none effect, but by the promise you are encouraged and enabled to fulfil the condition. You might like it better were there no condition; but that would not answer the design of Him that makes it. It is certain there are times of nearer access to God, and that it nearly imports us to improve those precious seasons. But we may find plausible objections against this, and indeed against anything. The more free you are with me, the more you oblige, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately.

To James Hutton Date: LEWISHAM, January 10, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JAMES,--Little journeys hither and thither have for these two or three weeks taken up much of my time. You know I am a busy kind of mortal; however, I am always glad to see my old friends. But most of them have taken their flight from hence, and are lodged in Abraham's bosom. I expect to be at West Street Chapel house on Monday, between eleven and twelve. Wishing you every gospel blessing; I remain, dear James, Yours affectionately. The Foundery I had wrote before I received yours.

To Ann Bolton Date: LONDON, February 29, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--All your letters are exceedingly pleasing to me and give me a peculiar satisfaction; but your last in particular. I know not how to repress the emotion I felt when I read it. I rejoice over others, but over you above all. How unspeakably near are you to me! Since the time that I mourned with you at London and was a partaker of your sorrow, you have given me more and more excuse to rejoice over you; though now and then with a jealous fear lest in anything you should suffer loss or be slackened in running the race set before you. I shall not ride any long journeys on horseback. [See letter of March 4.] But you must needs meet me either at Stroud or Broadmarston; else I shall almost think you do not love me. On Monday, March 9, I hope to be at Stroud; the Saturday following at Broadmarston. How do you know whether you shall see me any more in the body My dear Nancy, my friend, adieu!

To his Brother Charles Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- BlRMINGHAM, March 17, 1772, DEAR BROTHER,--The more you are at the Foundery the better. It is a good spirit which rules in that Society. [Charles Wesley came to live in Marylebone in May 1771.] You have done exactly right with regard to T. Maxfield. For the present my hope of him is lost. [He had had a disappointing interview with Maxfield on Feb. 25.] I am to-day to meet Mr. Fletcher at Bilbrook.[Wesley writes in the Journal, v. 449: 'Partly in a chaise, partly on horseback, I made a shift to get to Bilbrook; and, after preaching, to Wolverhampton.' Fletcher told the Dublin Society in March that he had sent his Third Check to press. See Wesley's Designated Successor, p. 222.] Part of the Third Check is printing. The rest I have ready. In this he draws the sword and throws away the scabbard. Yet I doubt not they will forgive him all if he will but promise --to write no more. J. Rouquet helped me at Bristol. [From March 3 to 9 Wesley had spent a 'few comfortable days' in Bristol. Mrs. Jenkins was one of the members there. It was probably Mrs. Reeves's husband, who died on Sept. 21, 1778. See C. Wesley's Journal, ii. 270, 275.] I neither saw nor heard anything of G. Stonehouse. Jane Jenkins is in a right spirit; affliction has done her good. Mrs. Reeves I had no time for. I feared Sister Marriott would not recover. [Mrs. Marriott was among the first twelve to join the Foundery Society in 1739, and her husband was one of its earliest members.] Mr. Blackwell's heart is truly softened; but why is she afraid to receive the Lord's supper [Wesley visited Mrs. Blackwell at Lewisham on Feb. 26. She died the following month. See letter of April 26.] If Mr. F-- does come, it will be for good. It does not follow, 'You felt nothing; therefore neither did your hearers.' In haste. Adieu.

To Joseph Thompson Date: EPWORTH, July 18, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH,--That Michael [Thompson was in Hall. Michael Fenwick was hospitably entertained by a gentleman at Bridlington for 'some years previous to his death' in 1797. See Atmore's Memorial, p. 124.] is not overcharged with wisdom is certain. But I do not know that he is a mischief-maker. It is your part to insist upon his keeping his round; to press the Yearly Collection in every place; and to see that all our rules be observed, whoever praises or blames. You have only to commend yourself to every man's conscience in the sight of God.... Whoever among us undertakes to baptize a child is ipso facto excluded from our Connexion.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Bennis Date: BRISTOL, August 31, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--MY health is not worse, but rather better. Your account of the Society in Waterford is pleasing. Continue to exercise your talent amongst them, and you will be a gainer by it. You need not dispute or reason about the name which belongs to the state you are in. You know what you have; be thankful for it. You know what you want-- zeal, liveliness, stability, deliverance from wandering imaginations; well, then, ask, and they shall be given. The way into the holiest is open through the blood of Jesus. You have free access through Him.

Nay, Nancy, I designed to have wrote but one page. But I know not how, when I am talking with you, though only by letter, I can hardly break off. But, indeed, as yet I have not touched on what I Chiefly intended. I see plainly that you are exposed to two dangers of entirely opposite natures. The one is (that which now assaults some of our friends in the West) refining upon religion, [See letters of Oct. 25 and Dec. 5.] aiming at something more sublime than plain, simple love producing lowliness, meekness, and resignation. The other is an abatement of zeal for doing good. I am a little jealous over you in this. Last year I warned you much on this very account. Did you follow that advice to let no fair occasion pass unheeded by [See his brother Samuel's poem 'On the Death of Mr. William Morgan of Christ Church,' in Journal, i. 104; and letter of Jan. 15, 1773, to Miss Bolton.] If you leaned a little toward an extreme (which I do not know), beware of gradually sliding into the other extreme! The good Lord guide you every moment! Do you find constant power over the old enemy, inordinate affection I pray do not stay another month before you write to, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother.

To Christopher Hopper Date: LIVERPOOL, March 21, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--You have saved us an hundred pounds with regard to the house at Bradford. An hundred pounds less shall serve there, which may be applied to better purposes. So you may use your free thoughts on any other head (directing to Dublin) when you please. It is certain there has been little management at the Orphan House, or you would not have been a penny in debt. However, do all you can in your own way toward discharging the General Debt. I do not know where Peggy Dale could have made a better choice [She was married March 4 to Edward Avison. See heading to letter of June 1, 1765]. Peace be with your spirits!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Woodhouse Date: DUBLIN, April 1, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--In such a case as you describe I do not see how you could well leave your brother. Where there is sickness, and especially an apprehension of death, we do not know how to break away from a friend. If the house is not built at Misterton [Six miles south of Epworth, and frequently visited by Wesley] as I directed, the people there must not expect to see me any more. I shall take it as both an instance of injustice and of personal disrespect to myself. Mr. Fletcher [See letter of July 30], of Gainsborough (if I understand the thing), refused to receive our preachers any longer. If so, they were not to blame in quitting the place; for they could do no otherwise. I believe my wife is still at Bristol, where I left her when I set out for Ireland. The preaching-house at Bradford in Yorkshire brings in, one way or other, near fifty pounds a year. The debt upon it is not much above five hundred pounds; so that in a few years it may clear its own debt [See letter of March 21]. But I know of no such other instance in England. I know not of one house beside that can even clear its own current expenses, much less yield an overplus to pay debt. If any preacher talks thus, he is either a fool or a knave: he has lost either his wits or his honesty. Besides, what must such an one think of me Does he think I am such a blockhead as to take all these pains for nothing to pay debts which would shortly pay themselves And how came any single preacher to know the state of all the houses in Great Britain so much better than I do I hope John Peacock [Peacock, the second preacher in Lincolnshire West, became an itinerant in 1767; after a useful and diligent ministry, he retired in 1796, and died at Burlington (Bridlington) in 1803] does not talk after this rate. Mr. Lee has raised near an hundred pounds in Leeds Circuit. He has common sense, and feels the burthen of Your affectionate brother.

A Christian (though perhaps he never heard the name of a Methodist) has power over all sin. Have you If not, it is certain you may; for God is no respecter of persons. Whatsoever He has given to any other He is willing to give to you also. O let your heart cry to Him, ‘ What I know not teach Thou me. Let me not die before I long to die! Give me the wisdom that sitteth by Thy throne, and reject me not from among Thy children!’ To His care I tenderly commit you; and am, my dear Miss Cummins, Yours affectionately. If you love me, hear Mr. Saunderson preach.

To Ann Bolton Date: LIVERPOOL, July 7, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--You will not be sorry to hear that God has once more brought me safe to England, and that I hope to be with you at Witney (coming from Birmingham) on Thursday, the 15th instant. Probably I shall preach abroad at half-hour after six. You know I am, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother.

To Mary Bishop Date: BRISTOL, September 19, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--It is certainly most profitable for us to have a variety of seasons. We could not bear either to be constantly in storms or constantly in a calm; but we are not certain, we cannot judge what proportion of one or the other is best for us. So it is well we are not left to our own wisdom, that we do not choose for ourselves. We should make strange work; but we know He that chooses for us orders all things well. There are excellent things in most of the Mystic writers. As almost all of them lived in the Romish Church, they were lights whom the gracious providence of God raised up to shine in a dark place. But they do not give a dear, a steady, or an uniform light. That wise and good man Professor Francke [August Hermann Francke (1663-1727) was professor at Halle 1692, and founded his famous Orphanage there in 1695] used to say of them, ‘ They do not describe our common Christianity, but every one has a religion of his own.’ It is very true: so that if you study the Mystic writers, you will find as many religions as books; and for this plain reason, each of them makes his own experience the standard of religion. Madame Guyon was a good woman and is a fine writer, but very far from judicious. Her writings will lead any one who is fond of them into unscriptural Quietism. They strike at the root, and tend to make us rest contented without either faith or works. It is certain the Scripture by ‘ prayer’ almost always means vocal prayer. And whosoever intermits this for any time will neither pray with the voice nor the heart. It is therefore our wisdom to force ourselves to prayer-- to pray whether we can pray or no. And many times while we are so doing the fire will fall from heaven, and we shall know our labor was not in vain.--I am, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours affectionately. PS.--It is on Wednesday sennight (the 29th inst.) that I purpose to preach at Bath (in my return from Bradford) at twelve o’clock.

To John Valton Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- BRADFORD (UPON AVON), September 29, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--All is well. Persons enough offer for the place [To take charge of Wesley’s Book-Room in London. See letters of Sept. 20 and Oct.20] who know it is easier by far than that of a merchant’s clerk. Am in no haste to change. Probably I shall do nothing more till I come to London. You was present at the Conference, and heard what was then said concerning unqualified preachers. I think Rd. Packer [Richard Packer came to London from Northamptonshire, was verted at the Foundery, and became a prosperous builder in Mile End. See Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, pp. 477-8] is as weak as most. Yet he has been often useful; and, what is stranger, in several places they are fond of him!--I am Your affectionate brother. I hope to be in town this day se'nnight.

To Certain Proprietors of East India Stock Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- [End of September 1773.] TO ALL WHO HAVE HAD EAST INDIA STOCK LATELY TRANSFERRED TO THEM, IN ORDER TO QUALIFY THEM FOR VOTING AT THE ELECTION FOR DIRECTORS ON WEDNESDAY NEXT. GENTLEMEN AND LADIES,--Do you know what the oath is which you are to take before you will be admitted to vote It is as follows: ‘ I, A B, do swear that the sum of five hundred pound, or more, of the capital stock of the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies doth at this time belong to me in my own right, and not in trust for any other person or persons whatsoever. So help me God.’ Do not you hereby call upon God either to help you or to send down His curse upon you as your oath is true or false If you consider this, can you take a false oath can you call God to witness to lie Are you not doing this if the stock standing in your name is not your real and true property Have you not given a note of your hand for it, which is to be returned upon your retransferring the stock Are you either benefited or hurt by the rise or fall of the stock If not, can you say you are proprietor at all Does it alter the case, though a third person lend you the money to pay for that stock which you are so to retransfer Still you nether gain nor lose by the rise or fall of the stock: a plain proof that you have no property therein. Weigh this in time; and do not, to oblige a friend, bring the guilt of perjury on your own soul.

To Hannah Ball Date: LONDON, October 4, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--The being sealed by the Spirit in the full sense of the word I take to imply two things: (1) The receiving the whole image of God, the whole mind which was in Christ, as the wax receives the whole impression of the seal when it is strongly and properly applied; (2) The full assurance of hope, or a clear and permanent confidence of living with God in glory. Either of these may be given (and sometimes is, though not frequently) separate from the other. When both are joined together, then I believe they constitute the Seal of the Spirit. But even this admits of various degrees: a degree of it I trust you have. Work and pray! Do and suffer the whom will of Him that calleth you! And He will supply whatever is wanting.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Mary Bosanquet Date: LONDON, October 17, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--I was laid up for a week or two last month; but have now nearly recovered my strength [See letter of Oct. 7]. If I live till spring and am as well as I am now, I shall move northward as usual. I am glad you have begun that little meeting for prayer. It will not be without a blessing. T. Lee [Thomas Lee, the Assistant at Birstall] may have half a dozen of the Instructions for Children [See letter of Feb. 23] to give as he sees needful. If you undertake the care of the books, I shall be under no farther concern about them; for I know what you do you will do in earnest. I wish you would immediately cause all the books which are at Birstall to be removed to your house [See letter of Nov. 17]. You will then be so kind as to send me a catalogue of them and of the books which you would have sent down. All those who keep my books for the future I shall desire to state their accounts once a month. But I do not know what you send me the bills for.--I am, my dear Your affectionate brother.

To Mary Bosanquet Date: LONDON, November 17, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--I am afraid the assortment of books which is at Birstall house is exceeding imperfect. As soon, therefore, as we receive the account from you, we shall send down such small books as are wanting and such as are most called for and most useful [See letter of Oct. 17]. My health seems now to be as well established as for many years. And this we are sure of--health we shall have if health be best. What have we to do but to make the best use of all our talents, and according to our power to glorify Him with our bodies and with our spirits--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately.

To Mary Bishop Date: LONDON, January 26, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--When I observe anything amiss in your temper or behavior, I shall hardly fail to tell you of it; for I am persuaded you would not only suffer it but profit by advice or reproof. I have been sometimes afraid you did not deal plainly enough with the young women under your care. There needs much courage and faithfulness, that you may do all that in you ties to present them faultless before the throne. I do not know whether there is any other outward employ which would be so proper for you as that you are now engaged in. You have scope to use all the talents which God has given you, and that is the most excellent way. You have likewise a most admirable exercise for your patience, either in the dullness or forwardness of your little ones. And some of these will learn from you, what is of the greatest importance, to know themselves and to know God. You must not, therefore, relinquish this station lightly--not without full and clear proof that God calls you so to do. Meantime bear your cross, and it will bear you. Seek an inward, not an outward change. What you want is only inward liberty, the glorious liberty of the children of God. And how soon may you enjoy this! Who knows what a day, an hour, a moment may bring forth How soon may you hear 'the voice that speaks Jehovah near'! Why should it not be to-day--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. Miss Bishop, Near the Cross Bath, In Bath.

I want to hear how you go in your new way of life. Is it likely to answer your brother’s expectations with regard to temporal affairs In so short a time you cannot know much, but you may form some little conjecture. Do you give attention enough and not too much to the various businesses that lie upon you I know you will be diligent therein. But are you too diligent, so as to engage too much of your time and thoughts to entrench upon things of an higher nature To deprive yourself of sufficient time for exercises of a nobler kind If you should intermit these on account of any business whatever, I doubt you would suffer loss. There would be a danger that the tenor of your spirit should cool by imperceptible degrees, and that your mind should be too much engaged in the things of this world. For many years my mother was employed in abundance of temporal business while my father, who meddled with no temporals, had his living in his own hands. Yet she never suffered anything to break in upon her stated hours of retirement, which she sacredly observed from the age of seventeen or eighteen to seventy-two. Let my friend tread in the steps of my mother. Follow her as she followed Christ. Do not delay to write and tell me just how you are and what you do. Everything that concerns you very nearly concerns me, my dear Nancy, Your friend and brother. Any time this month direct to me at Edinburgh.

To Miss J. C. March Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 3, 1774. You are living witness of two great truths: the one, that there cannot be a lasting, steady enjoyment of pure love without the direct testimony of the Spirit concerning it, without God's Spirit shining on His own work; the other, that setting perfection too high is the ready way to drive it out of the world. A third thing you may learn from your own experience is that the heart of man contains things that one would think incompatible. Such are the tempers and sensations of those especially that are renewed in love. Some of them seem to be quite inconsistent with others; so that, if we give way to reasoning on this head, if we will not believe what God has wrought till we can account for all the circumstances attending it, till we know how these things can be, we shall bewilder ourselves more and more, and Find no end, in wandering mazes lost. I believe one thing which has hurt you is that kind of silence. One use of your present journey may be this: Learn to speak for God without either fear or shame. You have need to be more simple. Look straight forward; eye one thing! Do not consider that you are a woman or a gentlewoman. Do not you bear an higher character What! know you not that your very body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you Therefore glorify God with your body and with your spirit. Give Him the praise that is due unto His name. I am glad you are going to Stroud. It is probable you will see that good young woman, A. Esther. If you do, I hope you will be enabled to encourage her, that she may hold fast the good gift of God. Her experience was exceeding clear when I talked with her last. If possible, guard her against evil reasoning, that she may never let go her simplicity. Peace be with all your spirits!

To Hannah Ball Date: SUNDERLAND, June 19, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--It is next to impossible to retain salvation from sin without having a dear witness of it, especially in time of temptation; they who then lose the witness commonly lose the blessing itself. When you can spare a day or two to visit any of the neighboring Societies, it will be a labor well bestowed. You will always find it a blessing to your own soul, as it is a means of quickening and strengthening others Sometimes I have been a little afraid for my dear Ann Bolton. If she is more engaged than she used to be in temporal things and less in spiritual, she must be something more than human or she will suffer loss, her soul will be flattened thereby. I am afraid lest she should sink into that delicate species of spiritual sloth which some call 'ceasing from our own works.' I wish she would write more frequently either to me or to you. It might be profitable to her. She has been as a mother in Israel; pity she should ever be less useful. I left Mr. Saunderson behind me in Scotland, but expect to see him at the Conference.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Henry Brooke Date: HULL, July 8, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR HARRY,--When I read over in Ireland The Fool of Quality, I could not but observe the deign of it, to promote the religion of the heart, and that it was well calculated to answer that design; the same thing I observed a week or two ago concerning Juliet Grenville. Yet there seemed to me to be a few passages both in the one and the other which might be altered to the better; I do not mean so much with regard to the sentiments, which are generally very just, as with regard to the structure of the story, which seemed here and there to be not quite clear. I had at first a thought of writing to Mr. Brooke himself, but I did not know whether I might take the liberty. Few authors will thank you for imagining you are able to correct their works. But if he could bear it and thinks it would be of any use, I would give another reading to both these works, and send him my thoughts without reserve just as they occur. I admired Miss Brooke for her silence; her look spake, though not her tongue. If we should live to meet again, I should be glad to hear as well as see her--I am Yours.

To Joseph Benson Date: SHEFFIELD, July 26, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH,--Certainly an account of the Societies in the Edinburgh Circuit will be expected from you at the Conference. I will then propose the case of Greenock. I am glad you have sent Brother Ferguson the Appeals. I believe Billy Eels might come to you directly, if you wrote to him and to Joseph Cownley. At length I hope good may be done in Scotland, and I incline to prefer your scheme to Dr. Hamilton's. Three preachers may do better than two, provided they change regularly, according to the plan you lay down. I know not but you must make a private subscription and wire over the cupola. 'Be zealous and humble; but never be still!'--Dear Joseph, adieu!

To Thomas Wride Date: TAUNTON, August 29, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- Alas! Alas! You have now confirmed beyond all contradiction what many of our preachers, as many as have had any intercourse with you, alleged concerning you. I am persuaded, had I read your last letter (that of the 17th instant) at the Conference, condemning, with such exquisite bitterness and self-sufficiency, men so many degrees better than yourself, the whole Conference as one man would have disclaimed all connection with you. I know not what to do. You know not what spirit you are of. Therefore there is small hope of cure. I have no heart to send you anywhere. You have neither lowliness nor love. What can I say or do more

To Elizabeth Ritchie Date: PENZANCE, September 1, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BETSY,--It is an admirable Providence which keeps you thus weak in body till your soul has received more strength. It is good that you should feel how very helpless you are, that you may hang upon Him continually. Are you always sensible of His presence In what sense do you pray without ceasing Can you in everything give thanks And have you a witness in yourself that all you say and do is well-pleasing to Him Could you but use constant exercise in the open air, I think you would need no other medicine. But it is certain, be your body well or ill, all is best as long as your soul is stayed on Him. And why should not this be without any intermission till your spirit returns to God--nay, with a continual increase For this is your calling to sink deeper and deeper into Him, out of His fullness to receive more and more, till you know all that love of God that passeth knowledge. I hope you do not pass any day without spending some time in private exercises. What do you read at those seasons Do you read, as it were, by chance Or have you a method in reading I want you to make the best use that is possible of every means of improvement. Now is the time! Now you have the fervor of youth on your side. Now animal nature is in perfection. Now your faculties are in their vigor. And happy are you, who have been enabled to begin your race betimes! I hope you are just now minding this one thing --looking unto Jesus, and pressing on to the mark, to the prize of our high calling! O run, and never fire! So shall your love and zeal always be a comfort to Yours affectionately.

'When God began to create the world, He fought with two giants for five thousand years. Then He commanded His first-born creature, Birmah, to create the fifteen regions of punishment and purgation. And Birmah straightway formed a leaf of Betel, and thereon floated on the abyss. Then Bistnow, His second-made creature, transformed himself into a mighty boar, and, descending into the abyss, brought up the earth on his back. Then issued from him a mighty tortoise and a mighty snake, and he put the snake erect on the back of the tortoise, and put the earth on the snakes head.' 'The world is to continue six millions of years in all, of which 359,126 are to come.' Such is the substance of the Shastah; far more wonderful than the Tales of the Fairies. This Mr. H--- gravely styles the Word of God, and seems to believe every word of it. As to the origin of it, we are told, 'Four thousand eight hundred and seventy-four years ago an angel received the laws of God, written in the language of angels, came down to Indostan, and, assuming an human form, translated them into the language of the country, calling them Chartah Bhade Shastah of Bramah--that is, the four Scriptures of divine words of the Mighty Spirit, which he promulged as the only means of salvation.' I am, secondly, to examine what is said on the antiquity of this and of the nations that hold it sacred. 'For a thousand years the Shastah remained pure; but then it was corrupted by a bad paraphrase; and still more about five hundred years after, which was 3,374 years ago.' But what proof have we of this Why, 'This account we have had from some of the Bramins and from the most learned of the Laity. And in the earliest ages the Bramins were famed for their wisdom by the concurrent testimony of all antiquity.' Pray cite a few testimonies from authors that wrote four or five thousand years ago. We know of none such. If we except the Bible, we know of no book that is three thousand years old. And we see no reason to think that letters have been in use so much as four thousand years.

If 'Zoroaster and Pythagoras did visit them about the time of Romulus’ (which I do not allow), what then Romulus did not live three thousand years ago; and Zoroaster a late author has sufficiently proved to be no other than Moses himself. The antiquity, therefore, of the Shastah is utterly uncertain, being unsupported by any clear authority. Equally doubtful is the antiquity of that empire. Nay, ' Indostan, by their own account, was peopled as early as most other parts of the known word.' But who can rely on their own accounts This authority is just none at all. But 'the first invaders of it found the inhabitants a potent, civilized, wise, and learned people: Alexander the Great found it so.' No. Arrian and Q. Curtius (the only writers who give us the particulars of that expedition) say quite the contrary. But 'the Gentoo records affirm it, which mention the invasion of a great and mighty robber.' I answer (1) How is it proved this was Alexander the Great There have been more great and mighty robbers than him. But if it was, (2) Of what antiquity was he who died little above two thousand years since (3) Of what authority are the Gentoo records As much as the visions of Mirza. But 'these doctrines were universally professed by the Gentoos, some thousand years before Christ; and the Metempsychosis was held in the most early ages by at least four-fifths of the earth; and the Gentoos were eminently distinguished in the most early times.' Roundly asserted: but that is not enough; a little proof would do well. Here it is at last. 'The Gentoos admit no proselytes to their faith or worship. This proves their great antiquity.' I know not how: the consequence halts sadly. But see another argument. 'This is also proved by the perpetuity of their doctrine through a succession of so many ages.' Right, when that succession is proved. A third proof! ' Pythagoras took his doctrines from them, which the Egyptians took from him.' I am an infidel as to both these facts till I see some proof of them. His true doctrines I believe Pythagoras learned from the Egyptians, and they from the Israelites.

To Elizabeth Ritchie Date: SHORRHAM, November 29, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BETSY,--It gives me pleasure to hear that you have recovered your health. If you find any fresh illness, you should let me know; we must not neglect the body, although the main thing is an healthful mind. There are many excellent things in Madame Guyon’s works, and there are many that are exceedingly dangerous. The more so because the good things make way for the mischievous ones. And it is not easy unless for those of much experience, to distinguish the one from the other. Perhaps, therefore, it might be safest for you chiefly to confine yourself to what we have published. You will then neither be perplexed with various sentiments nor with various language; and you will find enough on every head of religion, speculative or practical. I know not whether any method of reading would be more profitable than to read a chapter of the Old Testament with the Notes every morning; and every evening a chapter, or at least a section, in the New Testament. At other times of the day I advise you to read our works regularly from the beginning; marking any tract or part of a tract which you find most useful, that you may make it matter of meditation. Some of the most useful to believers are Mr. Law's tracts, the Lives of Mr. Brainerd, De Renty, and Thomas Walsh, the tracts translated from the French, and those upon Christian Perfection. I am glad you have been with our dear sister Crosby. Converse as much as you can with those of her spirit; they are the excellent ones of the earth. You must not give place--no, not for a day--to inactivity. Nothing is more apt to grow upon the soul; the less you speak or act for God the less you may. If elder persons do not speak, you are called, like Elihu, to supply this lack of service. Whether you are young or old is not material: speak, and spare not! Redeem the time! Be fervent in spirit! Buy up every opportunity; and be always a comfort to Yours affectionately.

To Thomas Wride Date: LONDON, February 24, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY,--Beware of your own spirit! You bite like a bull-dog; when you seize, you never let go. I advise you to think of William Hunter no more; go on your way as if he was under the earth. At a Quarterly Meeting, if the collection is only six pounds and two preachers are present, they commonly share it between them. In this case I do not say they defraud a third preacher who is expected; but I say they act unkindly. But you should tell me without fear or favor who has neglected the round. Part of the books which I borrowed of Mr. Hammond I left at Waterford with one who has promised to send them back directly. The other part one promised to send from Dublin. I am ashamed of their vile negligence. I hope to be in Dublin next month; and am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Ann Bolton Date: WORCESTER, March 15, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--If I could have seen you, though it had been only for an hour, it would have given me a very sensible satisfaction. I cannot easily express that union of spirit which I feel whenever I think of you. There is I know not what in your whole spirit and behavior which has always given me unspeakable pleasure; and when I look upon you (you know to whom the glory is due!), I am often ready to cry out, 'Thou perfect pattern of true womanhood!' But I know good is the will of the Lord; therefore I am content. If it is best, I shall see my dear friend again before I take my long journey; and if I do not see you till we meet in a better world, Surely our disembodied souls shall join, Surely my friendly shade shall mix with thine. To die is not to be lost; but our union will be more complete in the world of spirits than it can be while we dwell in tenements of clay. Certainly till persons experience something of the second awakening, till they are feelingly convinced of inbred sin so as earnestly to groan for deliverance from it, we need not speak to them of present sanctification. We should first labor to work that conviction in them. When they feel it and hunger and thirst after full salvation, then is the time to show them it is nigh at hand, it may be received just now by simple faith. I can now hardly expect (if I should live to return to England) to see you before next autumn. Let me, however, have the pleasure of hearing from you; and give a place in your memory and your prayers to, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. Direct to me at Dublin.

To John Fletcher Date: NORTHWICH, March 22, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR,--I have read over your papers, and hope they will be of use. But you have a little disappointed me. I expected a fictitious and a genuine Creed for Perfectionists, suitable to your Arminian Creeds. I know not whether your last tract was not as convincing as anything you have written. That method of untwisting the truth and falsehood which had been so artfully woven together has enabled many to distinguish one from the other more dearly than ever they did before. What a good Providence it is that different persons have different ways of writing! Many are convinced or affected by your way of writing who receive no benefit from mine. They are not to be reached by a few words: you must say a great deal, or you lose your labor. Heavy foot cannot overtake them; but when your light horse falls upon them on every side, they are utterly overthrown. I think the address to the Perfectionists and Imperfectionists will be well bestowed. And it is well you have bestowed a little time on Mr. Toplady. He might have been angry if you had taken no notice of him. It seems our views of Christian Perfection are a little different, though not opposite. It is certain every babe in Christ has received the Holy Ghost, and the Spirit witnesses with his spirit that he is a child of God. But he has not obtained Christian perfection. Perhaps you have not considered St. John's threefold distinction of Christian believers: little children, young men, and fathers. All of these had received the Holy Ghost; but only the fathers were perfected in love. But one thing seems to have escaped you still. What are the charms of Calvinism unde faces ardent How is it so many fall in love with her To-morrow I hope to be at Chester, and to embark on board the first vessel that offers. Commending myself to your prayers, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother.

To Mary Bosanquet Date: CLONES, May 29, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--I was particularly glad to hear from you at this time, as I wanted to know how you was going on and whether you was the person concerning whom one of our preachers warily asked my advice. Whether you should part with your house and things pertaining to it is a very important question. The answering of this depends upon many circumstances which I am not yet acquainted with. But necessity has no law. It must be done, if your income will not otherwise answer the expenses. The last day of June I hope to be in Dublin, and the end of July in England. If I have a ready passage, probably I may have an opportunity of hiding myself a day or two with you '; but I do not desire any of the preachers to come to me till I send for them. If they do, I shall run away. I will not be in a crowd. Probably you know whether Mr. Saunderson is at Knares-borough. If he is, pray take up a cross for me. Write to him in my name, and tell him I desire him without delay or excuse to return to Bristol; otherwise he will disoblige me for ever.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

'But they are divided, among themselves: so you are informed by various letters and memorials.' So, I doubt not, was poor Rehoboam informed concerning the ten tribes! So (nearer our times) was Philip informed concerning the people of the Netherlands! No, my Lord, they are terribly united; not in the Province of New England only, but down as low as the Jerseys and Pennsylvania the bulk of the people are so united that to speak a word in favor of the present English measures would almost endanger a man's life. Those who inform me of this (one of whom was with me last week, lately come from Philadelphia) are no sycophants; they say nothing to curry favor; they have nothing to gain or lose by me. But they speak with sorrow of heart what they have seen with their eyes and heard with their own ears. Those men think one and all, be it right or wrong, that they are contending pro aris et focis, for their wives, children, liberty! What advantage have they herein over men that fight only for pay! none of whom care a straw for the cause wherein they are engaged, most of whom strongly disapprove of it. Have they not another considerable advantage Is there occasion to recruit the troops Their supplies are at hand, all round about them: ours are three thousand miles off. Are we then able to conquer the Americans, suppose they are left to themselves Suppose all our neighbors stand stock still and leave us and them to fight it out But are we sure of this Are we sure that all our neighbors will stand stock still I doubt they have not promised it. And if they had, could we rely upon those promises Yet it is not probable they will send ships or men to America. Is there not a shorter way Do they not know where England and Ireland lie And have they not troops as well as ships in readiness All Europe is well apprised of this; only the English know nothing of the matter! What if they find means to land but ten thousand men where are the troops in England or Ireland to oppose them Why, cutting the throats of their brethren in America! Poor England in the meantime!

Are we, then, able to conquer the Americans, suppose they are left to themselves, suppose all our neighbors should stand stock still and leave us and them to fight it out But we are not sure of this. Nor are we sure that all our neighbors will stand stock still. I doubt they have not promised it; and if they had, could we rely upon those promises Yet it is not probable they will send ships or men to America. Is there not a shorter way Do they not know where England and Ireland lie And have they not troops as well as ships in readiness All Europe is well apprised of this; only the English know nothing of the matter! What if they find means to land but ten thousand men Where are the troops in England or Ireland to oppose them Why, cutting the throats of their brethren in America! Poor England in the meantime! 'But we have our militia---our valiant, disciplined militia. These will effectually oppose them.' Give me leave, my Lord, to relate a little circumstance of which I was informed by a clergyman who knew the fact. In 1716 a large body of militia were marching towards Preston against the rebels. In a wood which they were passing by a boy happened to discharge his fowling-piece. The soldiers gave all for lost, and by common consent threw down their arms and ran for life. So much dependence is to be placed on our valorous militia!

To the Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary of State for the Colonies Date: HAVERFORDWEST, August 23, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- MY LORD,--A letter which I received from Mr. Lowland yesterday occasions my giving you this trouble. You told him the Administration have been assured from every part of the kingdom that trade was as plentiful and flourishing as ever and the people as well employed and as well satisfied. Sir, I aver from my own personal knowledge, from the testimony of my own eyes and ears, that there cannot be a more notorious falsehood than has been palmed upon them for truth. I aver that in every part of England where I have been (and I have been east, west, north, and south within these two years) trade in general is exceedingly decayed and thousands of people are quite unemployed. Some I know to have perished for want of bread; others I have seen creeping up and down like walking shadows. I except three or four manufacturing towns, which have suffered less than others. I aver (2) that the people in general all over the nation are so far from being well satisfied that they are far more deeply dissatisfied than they appear to have been even a year or two before the Great Rebellion, and far more dangerously dissatisfied. The bulk of the people in every city, town, and village where I have been do not so much aim at the Ministry, as they usually did in the last century, but at the King himself. He is the object of their anger, contempt, and malice. They heartily despise His Majesty and hate him with a perfect hatred. They wish to imbue their hands in his blood; they are full of the spirit of murder and rebellion; and I am persuaded, should any occasion offer, thousands would be ready to act what they now speak. It is as much as ever I can do, and sometimes more than I can do, to keep this plague from infecting my own friends. And nineteen or twenty to whom I speak in defense of the King seem never to have heard a word spoken for him before. I marvel what wretches they are who abuse the credulity of the Ministry by those florid accounts.

To his Brother Charles Date: RAMSBURY PARK, October 17, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER,--It takes time to set people's heads right; but we must despair of nothing. I have cast my bread upon the waters, and should have been content though there had been no present fruit. Some hours this morning I devote to 'Americanus.' What is material I shall endeavor to answer. It is well if I can give as good an account of everything else as of my change of judgement. I find a danger now of a new kind--a danger of losing my love for the Americans: I mean for their miserable leaders; for the poor sheep are 'more sinned against than sinning,' especially since the amazing informations which I have received from James Ireland. Yet it is certain the bulk of the people both in England and America mean no harm; they only follow their leaders, and do as they are bid without knowing why or wherefore. On Friday I hope to be in London and to talk with the committee about building a new Foundery. This is a lovely spot and a lovely family. 'Tis pity but you could call here. It is four miles from Marlborough, and only a mile north of the London road. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu!

To his Brother Charles Date: LONDON, October 28, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER,--I am just returned from Bedford. I have not seen the King these dozen years. I don't know what you mean by Dr. Smyth's book. It was best to take no notice of the angry ones. At Ramsbury Park, about a mile to the left of the high road, lives James Nind, local preacher, and general steward for the circuit, on a farm of five hundred pounds a year. His wife, Sally Nind, is one of the most amiable women I know. They mightily desire that you would spend a few nights with them. I am just putting into the press 'a new edition of the Address, corrected'; in which my change is accounted for, and two of the questions fully answered To the third, ' Why did not the Parliament tax them before' Mr. Madan answers, ' Because they were wiser; they knew the mischief that would ensue.' Dr. Johnson is in France. I have not heard lately from Shoreham. If the worst comes, you must make shift at the Foundery for a week or two. I can put up another bed in that which was Jenny's room. I do not think you are wise in destroying those papers. Some of them might have been useful to many. When I was in Bristol, I ordered that Hugh Saunderson should preach on Thursday night. None but you should take his place. Joseph Pilmoor may preach on Friday or Monday. Some much like, others much dislike, H. Saunderson; but his audience generally is not small. However, I will refer him to you; but I wish you would fix Thursday. Mr. Fletcher would not be safe without you or me. I should like a conference with Mr. Madan. I have a second friendly letter from him to-day. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu! Pray give my love to T. Lewis, and tell him I thank him for his letter. If the persons now taken up are hanged, it may be the saving of the nation.

To James Rouquet Date: LONDON, November 12, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JAMES,--I will now simply tell you the thing as it is. As I was returning from the Leeds Conference, one gave me the tract which you refer to, part of which I read on my journey. The spirit of it I observed to be admirably good; and I then thought the arguments conclusive. In consequence of which, I suppose (though I do not remember it), I recommended it both to you and others; but I had so entirely forgotten it, that even when it was brought to me the other day I could not recollect that I had ever seen it.--I am Your affectionate brother.

(blessedbeGod!) than if I had been sitting in my study. The horses ran on, till they came to the edge of a steep precipice. Just then Mr. Smith, who could not overtake us before, galloped in between. They stopped in a moment. Had they gone on ever so little, he and we musthave gone down together ! I am persuaded both evil and good angels had a large share in this transaction : How large we do not know now ; but we shall know hereafter. I think some of the most remarkable circumstances were, 1 . Both the horses, which were tame and quiet as could be, starting out in amomentjust at the top of the hill, and running down full speed. 2. The coachman's being thrown on his head with such violence, and yet not hurt at all. 3. The chaise running again and again to the edge of each ditch, and yet not into it. 4. The avoiding the cart. 5. The keeping just the middle of the bridge. 6. The turning short through the first gate, in a manner that no coachman inEngland could have turned them, when in full gallop. 7. The going through the second gate as if it had been but smoke, without slackening their pace at all. Thiswould have been impossible, had not the end of the chariot- pole struck exactly on the centre of the gate ; whence the whole, by the sudden impetuous shock, was broke into small pieces. 8. That the little girl, who used to have fits, on my saying, "Nothing will hurtyou," ceased crying, and was quite composed. June, 1774. ] JOURNAL. 21 Lastly, that Mr. Smith struck in just then: In aminute more we hadbeendown the precipice ; and had not the horses then stop- ped at once, they must have carried him and us down together. " Let those give thanks whom the Lord hath redeemed, and delivered from the hand of the enemy ! " Fri. 24. I read over Dr. Wilson's tract on the Circulation of the Blood. What are we sure of but the Bible ? I thought nothing had been more sure, than that the heart is the grand moving power, which both begins and continues the circulation. But I think the Doctor has clearly proved, that it does not

Wednesday, 29. I rode to Witney, and found more life than I expected, both in the congregation and the society. Thursday, 20. I preached at Wattleton, at the front of Mr. Stonehill's house. The whole congregation was seriously attentive. In the evening I preached at High-Wycomb, to many more than the Room would contain ; and I believe not in vain. Fri. 21. I preached in Chesham, and on Saturday returned to London. Mon. 24. I set out for Northamptonshire, and received a particular account of one that eminently adorned the Gospel :- " 1. SUSANNAH SPENCER was born at Whittlebury, in the year 1742. When she was young she contracted a very general acquaintance, and was exceedingly beloved by them, having an agreeable person, a good understanding, and much sweetness of temper; and, being modest and decent in her whole behaviour, she seemed, like others, to think she had religion enough. " 2. In 1760, Thomas Grover came down, and preached several times at Whittlebury and at Towcester. She went to hear him, but with a fixed resolution, ' not to be catched,' as she called it ; but her resolution was vain. In a sermon she heard at Towcester, she was cut to the heart. Her convictions grew deeper and deeper from that time, for about a year. She was then hearing him preach, but felt her heart as hard as the nether millstone. Yet at the love-feast which followed, it was suddenly broke in pieces, and she was all melted into tears, by 32 [Oct. 1774. those words applied to her inmost soul, in an inexpressible manner,- MyGod is reconciled, His pardoning voice I hear ! He owns me for his child ; I canno longer fear. " 3. The day following, being exercised with strong tempta- tion, she gave up her confidence; but the next night, wrestling withGod in prayer, she received it againwith double evidence : And though afterwards she frequently felt some doubts, yet it never continued long ; but she had, in general, a clear, abiding sense of the pardoning love ofGod. "4. From that time she walked steadily and closely with God, and was a pattern to all around her. She was particularly exact in reproving sin, and lost no opportunity ofdoing it. In her whole conversation she was remarkably lively, and yet gentle

I intend to engrave on acopper-plate." Accordingly, without any instruction, he first made himself tools, and then engraved the plate. The second picture which he engraved, was that which was prefixed to the " Notes upon the New Testament." Such another instance, I suppose, not all England, or perhaps Europe, can produce. For several months past, he had far deeper communion with God, than ever he had had in his life; and for some days he had been frequently saying, " I am so happy, that I scarce know how to live. I enjoy such fellowship with God, as I thought could not be had on this side heaven." And having now finished his course of fifty-two years, after a long conflict with pain, sickness, and poverty, he gloriously rested from his labours, and entered into the joy of his Lord. Tues. 8.-I baptized twoyoungwomen; one ofwhom found adeep sense of the presence ofGodinhis ordinance ; the other received a full assurance of his pardoning love, and was filled withjoy unspeakable. Sun. 13. After aday of much labour, at my usual time, (half-hour past nine,) I lay down to rest. I told my servants, " I must rise at three, the Norwich coach setting out at four." Hearing one of them knock, though sooner than I expected, I rose and dressed myself; but afterwards, looking at my watch, I found itwas but half-hour past ten. While I was considering what to do, I heard a confused sound of many voices below ; and looking out at the window towards the yard, I saw it was as light as day. Meantime, many large flakes of fire were con- tinually flying about the house; all the upper part ofwhich was built of wood, which was near as dry as tinder. A large deal- yard, at a very smalldistance from us, was all in a light fire ; fromwhich the north-west wind drove the flames directly upon the Foundery; and there was no probability of help, for no water could be found. Perceiving I could be of no use, I took my Diary and my papers, and retired to a friend's house. I had no fear ; committing the matter into God's hands, and knowing He would do whatever was best. Immediately the wind turned about from north-west to south-east ; and our pump

ishment of my friends, I set out for Dublin. Idid notdetermine how far to go thatday, not knowing how my strength would hold. But finding myself no worse at Bannbridge, I ventured to Newry ; and, after travelling thirty (English) miles, I was stronger than in the morning. Thur. 29.-I went on to the Man-of-war, forty (Irish) miles from the Globe, at Newry. Friday, 30. Wemet Mr. Simpson, (with several other friends,) coming to meet us at Drogheda ; who took us to his country seat at James-Town, about two miles from Dublin . Tues. JULY 4.-Finding myself a little stronger, I preached for the first time ; and I believe most could hear. I preached 50 REV. J. WESLEY'S [Aug.1775. on Thursday again; and my voice was clear, though weak. So on Sunday I ventured to preach twice, and found no weari- ness at all. Monday, 10. I beganmyregular course ofpreach- ing, morning and evening. While I was in Dublin, Iread two extraordinary books, but ofvery different kinds ;-Mr. Sheridan's " Lectures on Elocu-- tion," and " The Life of Count Marsay ;" andwasdisappointed in both. There is more matterin the penny tract, " On Action and Utterance," abundantly more, than in all Mr. S.'s book ; Count though he seems to think himself a mere Phenix. Marsay was doubtless apious man, but a thorough enthusiast ; guided, in all his steps, not by the written word, but by his own imagination ; whichhe calls the Spirit. Sun. 23. I again assisted at St. Patrick's in delivering the elements ofthe Lord's Supper. In the evening I embarked in the Nonpareil ; and, about ten on Tuesday morning, landed at Park-Gate. Wednesday, 26. I found one relic of my illness, -my hand shook, sothat Icould hardlywrite my name. But after I had been well electrified, by driving four or five hours, over veryrugged, brokenpavement, my complaint was removed, andmy hand was as steady as when I was ten years old. About noon I preached in the shell of the House at Wigan. In the middle of the sermon, came an impetuous storm of thunder, lightning, and rain, which added much to the solem- nity of the occasion. Thursday, 27. Iwent on to Miss Bosan- quet's, and prepared for the Conference. How willingly could I spend the residue of a busy life in this delightful retirement ! But,

gation, more than an handful of Gentry, I earnestly besought them not to " receive the grace of God in vain. " The next even- ing I applied part of the thirteenth chapter ofthe First Epistle Nov. 1775.1 59 to the Corinthians. Many were shaken when they weighed themselves in that balance. May we not be found wanting in that day! Thur. 23. About noon I preached at Cranbrook, and in the evening at Staplehurst. Friday, 24. I preached at Sevenoaks, and on Saturday returned to London. In some of my late little journeys I read Mr. Wraxal's Travels, in which are several ingenious remarks. But the account he gives of Count Struenzee is a mistake, from begin- ning to end. Struenzee was as bad a man as most that ever lived. He caused many horrid abuses ; but never reformed, or desired to reform, one. And there was abundant proof of the crime for which he suffered : Therefore, the behaviour of King Georgewas exactly right. Mon. 27. I set out for Norwich. That evening I preached at Colchester ; Tuesday, at Norwich ; Wednesday, at Yarmouth. About this time I published the following letter in Lloyd's "Evening Post : " " I HAVE been seriously asked, ' From what motive did you publish your Calm Address to the American Colonies ?' " I seriously answer, Not to get money. Had that been my motive, I should have swelled it into a shilling pamphlet, and have entered it at Stationers' Hall. "Not to get preferment for myself, or my brother's children. I am a little too old to gape after it for myself: And if my bro- ther or I sought it for them, we have only to show them to the world. " Not to please anyman living, high or low. I know man- kind too well. I know they that love you for political service, love you less than their dinner ; and they that hate you, hate you worse than the devil. " Least of all did I write with a view to inflame any: Just the contrary. I contributed my mite toward putting out the flame which rages all over the land. This I have more oppor- tunity of observing than any other man in England. I see with pain to what an height this already rises, in every part of the

company ofpious, sensible men. I rejoiced to find that peace and love prevailed through the whole Circuit. Those who styled themselves My Lady's Preachers, who screamed, and railed, and threatened to swallow us up, are vanished away. I cannot learn that they havemade one convert ;-a plain proof that God did not send them. One was mentioning to-day a wonderful oration, which Mr. Rowland H. had lately made. I thoughtMr. Toplady hadnot left behind him his fellow ; but see !- -Primo avulso, non deficit alter Aureus, et simili frondescit virga metallo.* Sat. 29. I found the venerable old man at Cubert pale, *The following is Dryden's translation of these lines :- The first thus rent, a second will arise : And the same metal the same room supplies. EDIT. Sept. 1778.1 thin, and scarce half alive. However, he made shift to go in a chaise to the preaching, and, deaf as he was, to hear almost every word. He had such a night's rest as he had not had for many months, and in the morning seemed hardly the same person. It may be God will give him a little longer life, for thegood ofmany. Sun. 30.-About five I preached in the amphitheatre at Gwennap, it was believed, to four-and-twenty thousand. After- wards I spent a solemn hourwith the society, and slept in peace. Mon. 31. About eleven I preached to a large and serious congregation, near the Town-Hall, in Bodmin ; and about six inthe evening at Launceston ; a town as little troubled with religion as most in Cornwall. Tues. SEPTEMBER 1.-I went to Tiverton. I was musing here onwhat I hearda good man say long since,---" Once in seven years I burn all my sermons ; for it is a shame if I can- not write better sermons now than I could seven years ago." Whatever others can do, I really cannot. I cannot write a better sermon on theGood Steward, thanI did seven years ago : I cannot write a better on the Great Assize, than I did twenty years ago : I cannot write a better on the Use of Money, than I did near thirty years ago: Nay, I know not that I can write a betteronthe Circumcision of the Heart, than Idid five-and-forty years ago. Perhaps, indeed Imay have read five or six hun-

dred books more than I had then, andmay know a little more History, or Natural Philosophy, than I did , but I am not sensible that this has made any essential addition to my know- ledge inDivinity. Fortyyears ago I knew and preached every Christian doctrine which I preach now. Thur. 3.-About noon I preached at Cathanger, abouteight miles from Taunton. It was an exceeding large house, built (as the inscription over the gate testifies) in the year 1555, by Serjeant Walsh, who had then eight thousand pounds a year ; perhaps more than equal to twenty thousand now. Butthe once famous family is now forgotten ; the estate is mouldered almost into nothing; and three quarters of the magnificent buildings lie level with the dust. I preached in the great hall, like that of Lincoln College, to a very serious congregation. In the evening I preached at South-Petherton, once a place of renown, and the capital of a Saxon kingdom ; as is vouched by a palace of King Ina still remaining, and a very large and 136 REV. J WESLEY'S [Sept. 1778. ancient church. I suppose the last blow given to it was by Judge Jefferies, who, after Monmouth's rebellion, hanged so many of the inhabitants, and drove so many away, that it is never likely to lift up its head again. Fri. 4. I spent some time in the evening, and an hour in themorning, with the lovely children at Publow. Such another company ofthem I never saw, since Miss Bosanquet removed from Leytonstone. Sat. 5.-I returned to Bristol. Sunday, 6. At eight I preached near the Drawbridge ; at two near Kingswood school, under the tree which I planted for the use of the next genera- tion; and at five, near King's square, to a very numerous and exceeding serious congregation. Mon. 7.-In myway to Bath I read a pamphlet which sur- prised me exceedingly. For many years I had heard the King severely blamed for giving allplaces oftrust and profit to Scotch- men : And this was so positively and continually affirined, that Ihad no doubt ofit. To put the matter beyond all possible dispute, the writer appeals to the Court Kalendar of the present year, which contains the names of all those that hold places under the King. And hereby it appears, that of four hundred

more lively, but more innumber, than ever they were before. Tues. 27.-I saw amelancholy sight indeed! One that ten years ago was clearly perfected in love ; but was worried by Mr. , day and night, threaping him down he was in a delusion, that at length it drove him stark mad. And so he continues to this day. Observe ! it was not Perfection drove this manmad, but the incessant teasing him with doubtful dis- putations. Wed. 28.-I had promised to preach at six in the morning, to the poor prisoners at Whiteley. Though the ground was covered with snow, so many people flocked together, that Iwas constrained to preach in the court of the prison. The snow continued to fall, and the north wind to whistle round us ; but I trust God warmed many hearts. I preached at Wakefield in the evening ; Thursday, 29, at Rothwell and Leeds ; and on Friday noon, at Harewood. In the afternoon we walked to Mr. Lascelles's house. It is finely situated on a little eminence, commanding a most delightful prospect of hill anddale, and wood and water. It is built of a fine white stone, with two grand and beautiful fronts. I was not much struck with anything within. There is too much sameness in all the great houses I have seen in England; two rows of large, square rooms, with costly beds, glasses, chairs, and tables. But here is a profusion of wealth ; every pane of glass, we were informed, cost six-and-twenty shillings. One looking-glass cost five hundred pounds, and one bed, six hundred. The whole floor was just on the plan of Montague-House : now the British Museum. The grounds round the house are plea- sant indeed, particularly the walks on the river-side, and through May, 1779.1 the woods. But what has the owner thereof, savethe beholding them with his eyes ? Sat. MAY 1.-I looked over the first volume of Mr. Bryant's "Ancient Mythology." He seems to be a person of immense reading, and indefatigable industry. But I have two objections to thewhole work : 1. That his discoveries, being built chiefly on etymologies, carry no certainty in them. 2. That were they ever so certain, they are of no consequence. For instance, Whether Chiron was a man or a mountain, and whether the Cyclops were giants or watch-towers,-are points of no manner

on Saturday. Sunday, DECEMBER 5.-In applying those words, " What could I have done for my vineyard which I have not done?" I found such an uncommon pouring out of the convincing Spirit, as we have not known for many years. In the evening the same Spirit enabled me strongly to exhort a numerous congre- gation, to " come boldly to the throne ofgrace ; " and to " make all their requests known unto God with thanksgiving." Tues. 7.-I preached in Redriffchapel, a cold, uncomfortable place, to a handful ofpeople, who appeared to be just as much affected as the benches they sat upon. Thur. 9. In speaking on those words, " Set thy house in order; for thou shalt die and not live," I took occasion to ex- hort all who had notdone it already, to settle their temporal affairs without delay. Letnot any man who reads these words put it off a day longer ! Mon. 13. I retired to Lewisham, and settled the society- book. Fifty-seven members of the society have died this year ; and none of them " as a fool dieth." Anhundred and seventy have left the society. Such are the fruits of senseless pre- judice. Sat. 25.-We began the service at the new chapel, as usual, at four in the morning. Afterwards I read Prayers and preached and administered the Lord's Supper at West-Street. In the afternoon I preached at the new chapel again; then met the society ; and afterwards,the married men and women. But after this I was no more tired than when I rose in the morning. Wed. 29. Mr. Hatton, lately come from America, gave us an account of his strange deliverance. He was Collector of the Customs for the easternports of Maryland, and zealous for King George. Therefore the rebels resolved to dispatch him ; and a party was sent for that purpose under one Simpson, who owed Dec. 1779.1 JOURNAL . him five hundred pounds. But first he sent him the following note:- " We are resolved to have you dead or alive. So we advise you to give yourselfup, that you may give us no more trouble. " I am, Sir, " Your obedient servant." Mr. Hatton not complying with this civil advice, a party of rifle-menwere sent to take him. He was just going out, when

Sun. 4.-At eight in the evening I took coach for Bristol, with Mr. Rankin and two other friends. We drove with two horses as far as Reading. Two more were then added, with a postilion, who knowing little of his business, instead of going forward, turned quite round on a sloping ground, so that we expected the coach to overturn every moment. So it must have done, but that the coachman instantly leaped off, and with some other men held it up, till we got out at the opposite door. The coach was then soon set right, and we went on without let or hinderance. After spending two or three days at Bath, on Thursday, 8, Iwent forward to Bristol. On Monday, 12, and the following days, I visited the society; butwas surprised to find no greater increase, considering what Preachers they had had. Sun. 18. I preached morning and evening at the Room ; in the afternoon at Temple church. The congregation here is remarkably well-behaved ; indeed so are the parishioners in general. And no wonder, since they have had such a succession ofRectors as few parishes in England have had. The present incumbent truly fears God. So did his predecessor, Mr. Catcott, who was indeed as eminent for piety as most Clergymen in England. He succeeded his father, aman of the same spirit, who I suppose succeeded Mr. Arthur Bedford ; a person greatly esteemed, fifty or sixty years ago, for piety as well as learning. Mon. 19. For several years the severe weather has begun the very day I set out from Bristol. But the mild weather now continued seven or eight days longer. This evening I preached at Stroud ; Tuesday, 20, at Stroud, Gloucester, Tewkesbury, and Worcester. Wednesday, 21. At noon I preached in Bewd- ley; and atWorcester in the evening. Thursday, 23. I preached in Bengeworth church, and had some conversation with that amiable man, Mr. B. I preached in the evening at Pebworth church, on those words in the Lesson, " Godliness with content- ment is greatgain." Sat. 24.-I was invited to preach at Quinton, five miles from Birmingham. I preached there at noon in the open air, to a 198 REV. J. WESLEY'S [March, 1781. serious and attentive congregation. Some of them appeared to be very deeply affected. Who knows but itmay continue? In

five persons did so ; about as many men as women. explained to them the nature of a Christian society, and they willingly joined therein. Mon. 25. I spent an agreeable hour at the Boarding-School April, 1782. ] in Sheriff- Hales. I believe the Misses Yeomans are well qualified for their office. Several of the children are under strong drawings. We then went on to Newcastle-under-Lyne. (This is the name of a little river which runs near the town.) Tuesday, 26. I found many at Burslem, too, under sad appre- hensions of the public danger : So I applied to these also those comfortable words, " I will not destroy it for ten's sake." Thur. 28. Coming to Congleton, I found the Calvinists were just breaking in, and striving to make havoc of the flock. Is this brotherly love? Is this doing as we would be done to ? No more than robbing on the highway. But if it is decreed, they cannot help it : So we cannot blame them. MARCH 29.-(Being Good-Friday.) I came to Macclesfield just time enough to assist Mr. Simpson in the laborious service of the day. I preached for him morning and afternoon ; andwe administered the sacrament to about thirteen hundred persons. While wewere administering, I heard a low, soft, solemn sound, just like that of an Eolian harp. It continued five or six mi- nutes, and so affected many,that theycould not refrainfrom tears. It then gradually died away. Strange that no other organist (that I know) should think of this. In the evening, I preached at our Room. Herewas that harmony which artcannot imitate. Sat. 30.-As our friends at Leek, thirteen miles from Mac- clesfield, would take no denial, I went over, and preached about noon to alovely congregation. God bore witness to his word in an uncommon manner, so that I could not think much ofmy labour. MARCH 31.-(Being Easter-Day.) I preached inthe church, morning and evening, where we had about eight hundred com- municants. In the evening, we had a love-feast ; and such an one as I had not seen for many years. Sixteen or eighteen per- sons gave a clear, scriptural testimony of being renewed in love. Andmany others told what God had done for their souls, with inimitable simplicity. Mon. APRIL 1.-We set out in the morning for Chapel-en-

and in the afternoon returned to London . Sat. 15. I found the cold which I had contracted in the way 242 REV. J. WESLEY'S [Feb. 1783. to St. Alban's, exceedingly increased,having adeep and violent cough, which continued at intervals till spring. Mon. 16. I retired to Hoxton for afew days. Thursday, 19. About eleven at night, a gun was fired at our chamber window, and at the same time a large stone thrown through it. (Probably in sport,by some that had been drinking.) I pre- sently went to sleep again. Sat. 21. I visited Mr. Maxfield, struck with a violent stroke of palsy. He was senseless, and seemed near death ; but we besought God for him, and his spirit revived, I cannot but think, in answer to prayer. Sunday, 29. I buried the remains of Thomas Forfit, a rich, and yet a generous man. Hewas unwearied in welldoing; and in agood old age, without any pain or struggle, fell asleep. Tuesday, 31. We concluded the yearwith a solemn watch-night. Wed. JANUARY 1, 1783.-May I begin to live to-day ! Sunday, 5. We met to renew our covenant with God. We never meet on this occasion without a blessing ; but I do not know that wehad ever so large acongregationbefore. Fri. 10. I paid one more visit to Mr. Perronet, now in his ninetieth year. I do not know so venerable a man. His under- standing is little, if at all, impaired ; and his heart seems to be all love. A little longer I hope he will remain here, to be a blessing to all that see andhear him. Sun. 19. I preached at St. Thomas's church in the after- noon, and at St. Swithin's in the evening. The tide is now turned ; so that I have more invitations to preach in churches than I can accept of. Sat. FEBRUARY 1.-I drank tea at Mr.A-'s, in the Maze- pond, Southwark ; but both Mr. A- and his wife informed me they were determined to quit the house as soon as possible, by reason of strange noises, which they heard dayand night, but in the night chiefly, as if all the tables and chairs had been thrown up and down, in the rooms above and under them. Sun. 2.-Mr. Maxfield continuing ill, I preached this after-

at Mount-Ephraim, near Tunbridge-Wells. Wednesday, 19, I came once more to the lovely family at Shoreham. A little longer that venerable oldman is permitted to remain here, that the flock may not be scattered. When I was at Sevenoaks I made an odd remark. In the year 1769, I weighed an hundred and twenty-two pounds. In 1783, I weighed not a pound more or less. I doubt whether | such another instance is to be found in Great Britain. Mon. 24. I preached at Canterbury, and again on Wednes Jan. 1784 R A . 2 day ; on Tuesday, 25, at Dover ; Thursday, 27, at Sheerness, where Mr. Fox read Prayers, and I preached on those words in the Second Lesson, " To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden notyour hearts." Fri. 28. I returned to London. Tuesday, DECEMBER 2. I married Mr. Rutherford and Miss Lydia Duplex. Wednes- day, 3. I took a little journey into Hertfordshire ; and having preached at Hinxworth, and Wrestlingworth, on Friday, 5, I preached at Barnet, and on Saturday, 6, returned to London. Inow inquired more carefully and particularly into the strange case of poor Mr. M. But the more I inquired, the worse the matter appeared to be. It was plain,by the evidence of many unexceptionable witnesses, that he had told innumerable lies ; affirming, denying, and affirming again! And this man, who has lived above twenty years in a constant course of lying and slandering, tells you,he enjoys constant communion with God; and that nothing canmake him happier, but heaven ! Thur. 18.-I spent two hours with thatgreatman, Dr. John- son, who is sinking into the grave by agentledecay. Wednes- day, 24. While we were dining at Mr. Blunt's, his servant-maid, ill ofa sore throat, died. Saturday, 27. I dined at Mr. Awbrey's, with Mr. Wynantz, son ofthe Dutch merchant at whose house I met with Peter Böhler and his brethren, forty-five years ago. Wed. 31.-We concluded the year at the new chapel, with the voice of praise and thanksgiving. Thur. JANUARY 1, 1784.-I retired for two or threedays to Peckham. Sunday, 4. Though it rained violently, we had, I believe, upwards of eighteen hundred people, at the renewal of the Covenant : Many found an uncommon blessing therein. I am sure I did, for one. Tues. 6. At noon I preached at Barking, and in the even-

Thur. 6.-We had the largest congregation at five which I have seen since I came into the kingdom. We set out imme- diately after preaching, and reached Old-Meldrum about ten. Aservant of Lady Banff's was waiting for us there, who desired Iwould take post-horses to Fort-Glen. In two hours we reached an inn, which, the servant told us, was four little miles from her house. So we made the best of our way, and got thither in exactly three hours. All the family received us with the most cordial affection. At seven I preached to a small congregation, all ofwhom were seriously attentive, and some, I believe, deeply affected. Fri. 7.-I took a walk round about the town. I know not when I have seen so pleasant a place. One part of the house is an ancient castle, situated on the top of a little hill. At a small distance runs a clear river, with a beautiful wood on its banks. Close to it is a shady walk to the right, and another on the left hand. On two sides of the house there is abundance ofwood : On the other, a wide prospect over fields and meadows. About ten I preached again with much liberty of spirit, on, " Love never faileth." About two I left this charming place, and made for Keith. But I know not how we could have got thither, hadnot Lady Banff sent me forward, through that miser- able road, with four stout horses . I preached about seven to the poor of this world : Not a silk coat was seen among them : And to the greatest part of them at five in the morning. And I did not at all regret my labour. Sat. 8.-We reached the banks of the Spey. I suppose there are few such rivers in Europe. The rapidity of it exceeds even that of the Rhine : And it was now much swelled with melting snow. However, we made shift to get over before ten; and about twelve reached Elgin. Here I was received by adaugh- ter of good Mr. Plenderleith, late of Edinburgh ; with whom having spent an agreeable hour, I hastened toward Forres : But we were soon at full stop again ; the river Findorn also was so swollen, that we were afraid the ford was not passable. How-

tude of people flocked together, many of whom were of the better sort ; and most of them appeared to be, for the present, almost persuaded to be Christians. Wednesday, 23. About eleven I preached at Tewkesbury, and in the evening at Wor- cester. Thursday, 24. I breakfasted at Mrs. Price's, a Quaker, who keeps a Boarding-School. I was much pleased with her children, so elegantly plain in their behaviour, as well as apparel. Iwas led, I know not how, to speak to them largely ; then to pray; and we were all much comforted. The society is ingreat peace, and striving together forthe hope of the Gospel. I have not seen greater earnestness and simplicity inany society, since we left London. Iwas now considering how strangely the grain of mustard- seed, planted about fifty years ago, has grown up. Ithasspread through all Great Britain and Ireland ; the Isle of Wight, and the Isle of Man; then to America, from the Leeward Islands, through the whole continent, into Canada and Newfoundland. And the societies, in all these parts, walk by one rule, knowing March, 1785.] 299 religion is holy tempers ; and striving to worship God, not in form only, but likewise " in spirit and in truth." MARCH 25.-(Being Good-Friday.) I hastened to reach Birmingham before the Church Service began. Asharper frost I never knew : But indeed our House was hot enough in the evening ; and I have not seen a more earnest people. Such an advantage it is to be fully employed. In every place we find labouringmen most susceptible of religion. Such a blessing results from that curse, " In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eatbread." Sat. 26.-I had designed to rest ; but notice had been given ofmy preaching at Quinton at noon. As the House would not hold the people, I was constrained, cold as it was, to preach abroad; and they all seemed to feel that solemn question, " How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ? " In the evening myheart was enlarged in such amanner as I have seldom known ; so that I detained the congregation consi- derably longer than I am accustomed to ; and all the people seemed determined to " glorify God with their body and their spirit." MARCH 27.-(Being Easter-day.) I preached at seven, on,

she wasnot only sincere,but deep in grace ; and therefore incap- able of deceit. I was convinced likewise, that she had frequent intercourse with a spirit that appeared in the form of an angel . I know not how tojudge of the rest. Her account was :-" For above a year, I have seen this angel, whose face is exceeding beautiful; her raiment," so she speaks, "white as snow, and glis- tering like silver; her voice unspeakably soft and musical. She tells me many things before they come to pass. She foretold, I should be ill at such atime, in such a manner, and well at such an hour ; and it was so exactly. She has said, such a per- son shall die at such a time; and he did so. Above two months ago, she told me, your brother was dead; (I did not know you hadabrother;) and that he was in heaven. And some time since she told me,you will die in less than ayear. But what she has most earnestly and frequently toldme, is, that God will in a short time be avenged of obstinate sinners,and will destroy them with fire from heaven." Whether this will be so or no, I cannot tell ; but when we were alone, there was a wonderful power in her words; and as the Indian said to David Brainerd, "They did good to my heart." It is above a year since this girl was first visited in this man- June, 1788. ner, being then between fourteen and fifteen years old. But she was then quite awomanish girl,andofunblamable behaviour. Suppose that which appeared to her was really an angel ; yet from the face, the voice, and the apparel, she might easily mis- take him for a female; and this mistake is of little consequence. Much good has already resulted from this odd event ; and is likely to ensue ; provided those who believe, and those who dis- believe, her report,havebut patience with each other. We had a love-feast in the evening, at which several spoke deep experience in a plain, artless manner ; and many were greatly comforted, and stirred up more intensely to hunger and thirst after righteousness . Wed. 11. About noon I preached at Stockton ; but the House would not contain the congregation ; nor indeed at

his voice, yea, and that a mighty voice. Surely those who now heard will be without excuse, if they do not know the day of their visitation ! Weweremuch distressed at Rotherham for wantofroom, the raindriving us into the House. However, we stowed in it as many as we possibly could; andGod bore witness to his word. Wednesday, 9. After dining with that lovely old man, Mr. Sparrow, I went on to Sheffield. The House was much crowded, though one ofthe largest in England; but all could hear distinctly. In the morning, Thursday, 10, at five we had an evening congregation ; and the people seemed to devour the word. Here and at Hull are the two largest morning congre- gations which I have seen in the kingdom. Fri. 11. We set out early for Derby. About nine, within about a mile of the Peacock, suddenly the axletree ofmychaise snapped asunder, and the carriage overturned. The horses stood still till Jenny Smith and I crept out at the fore-windows . The broken glass cut one of my gloves a little, but did us no other damage. I soon procured another chaise, and went on to Derby, where I preached in the evening ; and at five in the morning on Saturday, 12; and then went on to Nottingham. Sun. 13. I beganthe service at ten; but Iknew not how I should get to the end, being almost exhausted when I had finished my sermon ; when Mr. Dodwell came,who, though very weak through the ague, assisted me in administering the Lord's After supper to a very large number of communicants . [Aug. 1788. preaching in the evening, I made a collection for Kingswood School . To-day Ihadjust as much work as I could do. Mon. 14. The mail-coach being full, I crossed over to Newark, and had the satisfaction of seeing in the evening, not only a numerous, but likewise a serious and deeply attentive congregation. Wed. 16. I consulted with a few friends concerningthe state of things ; which was better than I expected. The society is increased, and the ordinary hearers in all parts of the town not diminished. Meantime there is reason to hope the work ofGod goes on, though by slow degrees. On the following days I looked over my books and papers, and set them in order as far

free. Wednesday, 22. I made one more trial of poor Towcester, if haply God might yet breathe on the dry bones, by opening and strongly applying these words, " I will heal their backsliding ; Iwill love them freely." In the evening, and on Thursday morning, I preached at Northampton, in the new Presbyterian meeting-house, a large and elegant building, I think not without effect; and then returned to London. Tues. 28. I took the stage-coach for Rye ; which promised to be there by six in the evening : But the coachman lingered so, that in the afternoon I found they did not intend to be there tillnear eight : So at Hawkhurst I took a post-chaise, which, with much ado, reached it soon after six. Being informed the service was begun, I did not stay to eat or drink, but went directly to the preaching-house, which was sufficiently crowded ; and, as [Nov. 1788. soon as I could get through the people, I began with solemn prayer ; and then explained and applied that glorious truth, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." We had another happy opportunity at five in the morning. Know- ing there was no depending on the coach, I took chaise ; and by that means came early to Sevenoaks ; where, in the evening, I found uncommon liberty of spirit in exhorting the audience to worship God in spirit and in truth . Sat. NOVEMBER 1.-(Being All- Saints' Day. ) I preached at Snowsfields, on Rev. xiv. 1 ; a comfortable subject ; and I always find this a comfortable day. Monday, 3. I began visiting the classes ; a work which usually takes up about a fortnight. Sun- day, 9. I preached at West-Street, and found uncommon liberty in enforcing that caution, " Quench not the Spirit." On Wed- nesday, 12, and the following days, I visited the country soci- eties ; some of which, that of Mitcham inparticular, are swiftly increasing in the grace ofGod. Mon. 17.-I set out for Hertfordshire. In the evening I preached at Hinxworth, to a deeply serious congregation ; the next evening, in the church at Wrestlingworth, to the largest congregation I have seen there these twenty years. Wednesday,

read, and then subscribed by the President and Secretary thereof for the time being, during the time such Conference shall be assembled ; and when so entered and subscribed, shall be had, taken, received, and be, the acts of the Confer- ence, and such entry and subscription as aforesaid, shall be had, taken, received, and be, evidence of all and every such acts of the said Conference, and of their said delegates, with- out the aid of any other proof; and whatever shall not be so entered and subscribed as aforesaid, shall not be had, taken, received, or be, the act of the Conference: And the said President and Secretary are hereby required and obliged to enter and subscribe, as aforesaid, every act whatever of the Conference. Lastly, Whenever the said Conference shall be reduced under the number of forty members, and continue so reduced for three yearly assemblies thereof successively, or whenever the members thereof shall decline or neglect to meet together annually for the purposes aforesaid,during the space of three years, that then, and in either of the said events, the Confer- ence of the people called Methodists shall be extinguished, and all the aforesaid powers, privileges, and advantages shall cease, and the said chapels and premises, and all other cha- pels and premises, which now are, or hereafter may be, settled, given, or conveyed, upon the trusts aforesaid, shall vest in the Trustees for the time being of the said chapels and pre- mises respectively, and their successors for ever ; UPON TRUST that they, and the survivors of them, and the Trustees for the time being, do, shall, and may appoint such person and per- sons to preach and expound God's Holy Word therein, and to have the use and enjoyment thereof, for such time, and in such manner, as to them shall seem proper. Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to extinguish, lessen, or abridge the life-estate of the said John Wesley and Charles Wesley, or either of them, of and in any of the said chapels and premises, or any other chapels and premises, wherein they the said John Wesley and Charles Wesley, or either of them, now have, or may have, any estate or interest, power or authority whatso- ever. En witness whereof, the said John Wesley hath hereunto set his

To Richard Boardman () Date: NEAR LONDON, January 12, 1776. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1776) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear so good an account of the work of God and of my dear friends Mr. and Mrs. 'Smith. I believe I shall send you a man after your own heart, a stanch, sensible, solid man, and one that I trust is a living witness of the grand Christian doctrine. Our little books you should spread wherever you go. Reading Christians will be knowing Christians. My health (blessed be God) is perfectly restored.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To the Printer of the 'Gazetteer' Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1776) Author: John Wesley --- LONDON, January [25], 1776. In one respect I am much obliged to the gentlemen (or gentleman) who spend so much time upon the Primitive Physick; and would humbly entreat them to say something about it (no matter what) in half a dozen more of your papers. If nothing was said about it, most people might be ignorant that there was any such tract in the world. But their mentioning it makes many inquire concerning it, and so disperses it more and move. The gentleman signing himself XXX in your last week's paper (Probably Mr. Antidote) seems now to have shot his last bolt, anti that feebly indeed. But he begins magnanimously: 'Mr. Wesley is too proud, too self-sufficient, and too much wrapped up in his self-importance, to vouchsafe either Mr. Caleb Evans or any other correspondent anything in the shape of an answer.' How grievously does this man stumble at the threshold! with what glaring, palpable falsehood does he set out! Have I not given a direct answer, both to Mr. Evans and Antidote, and S. E. and P. P. in the public papers However, I am obliged to him for informing me of the difference between 'ounces, scruples, drachms, or drams, and grains.' Otherwise, after mistaking a dram for a grain, I might have mistaken an ounce for a dram. But a dreadful objection comes next: 'Some people run as they read. Mr. Wesley's whole progressive life stands as a proof that he is one of that species of readers. In that mode he hath read the Scriptures, and in that mode doth he read every book.’

To Robert Costerdine Date: MANCHESTER, April 7, 1776. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1776) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ROBERT,--You have done exceeding well in the case of poor Sam. Woodcock. I do not see what you could do more. But the great question is now what he can do; for I doubt he cannot be employed as a preacher--at least, until he has given sufficient proof of a real and deep repentance. I have sent T. Newall into Epworth Circuit. This day fortnight I expect to be at Leeds; and am, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother.

Some writers make a distinction which seems not improper. They speak of the essential part of heaven and the accessory parts. A man without any learning is naturally led into the same distinction. So the poor dying peasant in Frederica: ' To be sure heaven is a fine place, a very fine place; but I do not care for that: I want to see God and to be with Him.' I do not know whether the usual question be well stated, ' Is heaven a state or a place ' There is no opposition between these two; it is both the one and the other. It is the place wherein God more immediately dwells with those saints who are in a glorified state. Homer could only conceive of the place that it was paved with brass. Milton in one place makes heaven' s pavement beaten gold; in another he defines it more sublimely ' the house of God, star-paved.' As full an account of this house of God as it can yet enter into our hearts to conceive is given us in various parts of the Revelation. There we have a fair prospect into the holiest, where are, first, He that sitteth upon the throne; then the four living creatures; next, the twenty-four elders; afterwards the great multitude which no man can number; and, surrounding them all, the various myriads of angels, whom God hath constituted in a wonderful order. 'But what is the essential part of heaven ' Undoubtedly it is to see God, to know God, to love God. We shall then know both His nature, and His works of creation, of providence, and of redemption. Even in paradise, in the intermediate state between death and the resurrection, we shall learn more concerning these in an hour than we could in an age during our stay in the body. We cannot tell, indeed, how we shall then exist or what kind of organs we shall have: the soul will not be encumbered with flesh and blood; but probably it will have some sort of ethereal vehicle, even before God clothes us ' with our nobler house of empyrean light.'

To James Barry Date: COLNE, April 30, 1776. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1776) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JAMES,--Five or six years ago the Dales Circuit was quite out of debt. How come they in debt now Why, at this rate we shall never have done. If they now collect only for themselves, how does this help me to carry on the general work This is nothing for the purpose of the Yearly Subscription toward a common stock. But be this as it may, you know the rule in the Minutes--that all the money thus collected is to be produced at the Conference. If I am not called back to London to superintend the building/I hope to be in your circuit in June.--I am, dear James, . Your affectionate friend.

To Christopher Hopper Date: NEAR LONDON, February 1, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--James Kershaw is stark staring mad, more than ever John Reed was. [See letters of March 3, 1776 (to Mrs. Woodhouse), and Feb. 15, 1777.] He prophesies that 'all the Methodists are to go over to America in the belly of a whale.' Take this as a specimen. We shall not begin our building here before April. Probably I shall take a short journey (to Leeds or Newcastle or Dublin) once a month; but I must never be absent long at a time. [See letter of Feb. 14.] How we shall be able to raise the money I know not. But ' the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.'--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Alexander Clark Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- BRADFORD-[UPON-AVON], September 9, 1777. MY DEAR BRETHERN, [This letter was sent to Clark for himself and the other leaders.] --It is certain our preachers have a right to preach our doctrines, as my lady’s have to preach theirs. None can blame them for this. But I blame all even that speak the truth otherwise than in love. Keenness of spirit and tartness of language are never to be commended. It is only in meekness that we are to instruct those that oppose themselves. But we are not allowed upon any account whatever to return evil for evil or railing for railing. I have desired Mr. Boardman to be in Dublin as soon as possible. I believe you know his spirit. He is a loving, peaceable man. Meantime in your patience possess ye your souls.--I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother.

To Ann Bolton Date: BRISTOL, September 15, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,---You know how nearly I am concerned in whatever relates to you. My regard for you has been invariable ever since you was with me in London. I then set you-down for my inalienable friend, and such I trust you will always be, until the union of our spirits will be complete where our bodies part no more. Why, then, should I not speak (as I have done hitherto) in all simplicity. Why should I not tell you just what rises in my heart even on the most delicate occasion! I cannot once suppose you will take it amiss. I speak plainly because I love you. God has lately delivered you out of imminent danger, that of being unequally yoked with an unbeliever. That he is so now will admit of no dispute. And it is not plain that ever he was otherwise. It is highly probable that he never was: that he either wore the appearance of religion for a time, or deceived himself as well as others by mistaking good desires, transient desires for good tempers, whether those desires were real----. But it is certain they were not deep; and as they were chiefly from love to you, it is scarce possible they could have been lasting.

To Mary Bishop Date: NEAR OXFORD, October 22, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR MISS BISHOP,--By long experience I am convinced that natural strength of understanding is no defense against the most absurd errors; more especially if we lean to it ever so little, if we are not deeply conscious of our own weakness. I am therefore jealous of you also: I am afraid lest you too 'fall where many mightier have been slain.' Indeed, some have not scrupled to say already, 'Oh, Miss Bishop will soon be enlightened as well as Miss Flower. [ See letters of Sept. 15 (to her) and Nov. 16.] She has such a regard for Mr. Hilton, that he will soon open her eyes.' As yet I cannot believe he will; yet I do not say there is no danger. Has he opened the cause? Has he spoke o wrote to you upon the favorite subject? Has he talked you about 'being still, ceasing from your own works, and from crying, Lo here and lo there'? If he has, what impression did that smooth and plausible conversation make upon your mind Was you almost persuaded it was right? or did you stand unmoved? If you was moved, if you too should leave 'the fallen Methodists,' and join 'the Friends, the only living people in the world '; still, I do not find myself inclined to bring am heavy indictment against you. I should not be angry; though I should grieve, for I cannot easily part with those I love. I am inclined to think your friend of Bath made a mistake with regard to the person. I did receive ' a letter which I knew-not what to make of.' But it was from Miss Flower, not Miss Bishop. I do not remember that ever I received a letter from you which I did not understand. I know few people who write or speak more intelligibly than you do; and I hope you will soon give a fresh proof of it to, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours affectionately

To Mrs. Barton Date: STONY STRATFORD, October 28, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad that in spite of all discouragement’s your little Society still keep together. There is undoubtedly a fairer prospect now than there has been for some time. I believe good will result from Miss Hurrell's visit. [See letter of July 29 to Mrs. Barton.] She has been of use to many. And it is certain both T. Hanson [The ministers in the Hull Circuit.] and James Hudson [The ministers in the Hull Circuit.] are workmen that need not be ashamed. They are good preachers and (what is more) good men; and their heart is in the work. I wish when opportunity serves you would speak freely to them. Men of this kind are not always to be found. You have been long led in a rough and thorny way. But as your day so your strength has been. He that loves you gives you help for to-day, and you need not take thought for to-morrow. You have His love and truth and promise on your side, and He hath never failed them that seek Him. Peace be with your spirit!--I am, dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother.

To Miss March Date: NEAR LONDON, December 10, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- You do not at all understand my manner of life. Though I am always in haste, I am never in a hurry'; because I never undertake any more work than I can go through with perfect calmness of spirit. It is true I travel four or five thousand miles in a year. But I generally travel alone in my carriage, and consequently am as retired ten hours in a day as if I was in a wilderness. On other days I never spend less than three hours (frequently ten or twelve) in the day alone. So there are few persons in the kingdom who spend so many hours secluded from all company. Yet I find time to visit the sick and the poor; and I must do it, if I believe the Bible, if I believe these are the marks whereby the Shepherd of Israel will know and judge His sheep at the great day; therefore, when there is time and opportunity for it, who can doubt but this is matter of absolute duty? When I was at Oxford, and lived almost like an hermit, I saw not how any busy man could be saved. I scarce thought it possible for a man to retain the Christian spirit amidst the noise and bustle of the world. God taught me better by my own experience. I had ten times more business in America (that is, at intervals) than ever I had in my life. But it was no hindrance to silence of spirit.

To Thomas Rutherford Date: LONDON, December 20, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY,--You gave me an agreeable account of the progress of the work of God in the island. I apprehend you will meet with no hindrance from men in power. They know the mind of the King. You cannot with a good conscience receive that froward man either as a leader or a member of the Society unless he acknowledges his fault. Otherwise he would do more hurt in the Society than out of it.--I am, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. I fix no journeys till after Christmas.

To Mrs. Johnston, Annandde, Listeen. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - I do not remember the receiving any letter from you, either at Dublin or since I left it. Neither have I received any fresh complaint concerning you. [See letter of Feb. 14 to her.] What I formerly heard I gave you an account of, to which you gave me a distinct answer, and I was fully satisfied. I am relieved to think someone talked of making a fresh complaint. But it is very probable his heart failed, and so the child was strangled in the birth. Indeed, I do not wonder if people are not forward to complain of you to me. Because they know I am a prejudicial person: they know the tender regard I have you and yours, and consequently how hard it is for me: to blame you in anything. That God may give you many happy is the prayer of, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Thomas Taylor Date: LONDON, January 15, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - I am glad you have seen Mr. Pugh. The Philosophy is finished, [See letter of Feb. 15, 1777.] and will be sent down next month. I spoke briefly before; but since you urge me to it, I will now come full upon your subject. As to Preaching, you ought not to preach against that unscriptural, blasphemous, mischievous doctrine constantly - no, nor very frequently. But you ought now and then to bear a full, strong, express testimony against it; otherwise you are a sinner against God and your people and your own soul. I have done this too seldom, scarce once in fifty sermons: ought to have done it once in fifteen or ten.

To Mrs. Johnston, Annandale, Lisleen Date: LONDON, February 14, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - The fact was true. And there was a grievous mistake with regard to the time of it for that letter (which was wrote, I suppose, a year and a half ago); since that time I have had no complaint of the kind. [See letter of Jan. 8.] If I had, I should have let you know. But you need not be under any apprehension of my being offended at you either on this or any other account. I am not easily offended at those I love, and I have loved you ever since I saw you for your artlessness and sincerity; and I believe you will never quit that character, though it be ever so much out of fashion. I cannot doubt but Robert Swindells' stay at Lisleen was of use to others as well as himself. As Shakespear's 'the man of exceeding honesty,' one may take his word. Therefore I am strongly persuaded he is no Calvinist; yet I do not wonder that it should be imputed to him, for he was leaning toward it for many years. This all our preachers know; but they did not all know that he now sees more clearly. In about a fortnight I purpose to set out from London, and probably about the end of next month I shall be in Dublin. I intend with God's help to visit the South of Ireland first start, make Londonderry beginning of June. If so, I will have the pleasure of seeing you and your dear family before the end of May. Peace be with all your spirits,-I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Alexander Knox Date: LONDON, February 26, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ALLECK, - In the latter end of March I hope to be in Dublin, and about the 28th of May in Londonderry. [preached on May 28 in Londonderry, and stayed till June 4.] It is a place I always loved; but I shall love it more than ever if I have the pleasure of lodging with you. With regard to your health, both of body and mind, if you could take one advice it would have a surprising effect. It is this: 'Take no thought for the morrow.' You know not how much even your body suffers by this. To-day only is yours. Look up, and He will bless you all to-day. - I am, my dear Alleck, Very affectionately yours.

To Alexander Knox Date: DUBLIN, April 2, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR ALLECK, - I came hither this morning, after a rough passage, from Liverpool; and purpose (if God continue my life and health) to be with you at Londonderry on Friday, May 28. It is right to know ourselves, but not to stop there, as you are apt to do. This is only of use if it leads us to know Him that loves and saves sinners; and, I doubt not, He will save you. Trust Him, and you shall praise Him. I hope my dear Sally has not forgotten me. Peace be with all your spirits! - I am, dear Alleck, Yours affectionately.

To Elizabeth Ritchie Date: SALISBURY, October 6, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BETSY, - Since I saw her I have had the pleasure of receiving two letters from --; and I am more and more convinced that she has sustained no real loss from her late trials. Indeed, the greatness of them proved the greatness of her grace; otherwise she must have utterly fainted. But I am afraid the poor tenement of clay has received such a shock as will not easily be repaired. The wonderful behavior of Mrs. was more than it was well able to bear. But the comfort is, He with whom we have to do is the Physician. I doubt whether any embodied spirit can feel such entire self-abasement as is felt by those spirits that see the face of our Father which is in heaven. And undoubtedly the nearer they approach the throne the more abused they will be. The plerophory (or full assurance) of faith is such a divine testimony that we are reconciled to God as excludes all doubt and fear concerning it. This refers only to what is present. The plerophory (or full assurance) of hope is a divine testimony that we shall endure to the end; or, more directly, that we shall enjoy God in glory. This is by no means essential to or inseparable from perfect love. It is sometimes given to those that are not perfected in love, as it was to Mr. Grimshaw. And it is not given (at least not for some time) to many that are perfected in love. I do not say you ought to pray for it; but I think you may, only with absolute resignation. In this, as in all things, ' His manner and His time are best.' I rejoice to hear of the continuance of your health. [She had written, 'My own health also is better than when you were here. I have been three weeks in the North, chiefly on the edge of a cold moor, which has agreed with me very well.'] But you will still need constant exercise; to which should be added as often as may be change of air. That you may enjoy more and more health, both of soul and body, is the prayer of Yours affectionately.

To Mrs. Barton Date: LONDON, November 13, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - I am glad Sister Crosby has been at Beverley and that you had an opportunity of hearing her. She is useful wheresoever she goes, particularly in exciting believers to go on to perfection. There is frequently something very mysterious in the ways of divine Providence. A little of them we may understand; but much more is beyond our comprehension, and we must be content to say, 'What Thou doest I know not now, but I shall know hereafter.' At present it is sufficient for me to know that all His ways are mercy and truth to them that love Him. Even in these troublous times there is a very considerable increase of the work of God. Cleave to Him with your whole heart, and you will have more and more' reason to praise Him.-I am, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Woodhouse Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- LONDON, November, 18, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - I have no intimacy with Lord North. I never saw him. I never wrote to him; very probably I never shall. I never asked any favor of him. I would not on any consideration whatever. It is a saying, You do not know what kind of animals great men are. They will not move an hair's breadth out of their line. They will on no account interfere in each other's province. Now, I told you before, only the Commissioners at the Customs dispose of Custom House places. And I know not one of those Commissioners. Therefore I can do nothing in this matter. [Compare letter of Dec. 26.] I am not sparing of my pains; but I know what I can do and what I cannot. If I could do it, you would not need to ask anything twice of Your affectionate brother.

To John Toocks Date: NEAR LONDON, December 26, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- Never was there a time (at least in my remembrance) when employments of this kind were so difficult to be procured. I know several young persons who are well qualified for any such place; but they cannot get any, and are almost perishing for want. So that what I can do for you I know not. [Compare letter of Nov. 18.] - I am Yours affectionately.

To Hester Ann Roe Date: LONDON, February 11, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR HETTY, - It is a great mercy that, on the one hand, you have previous warning of the trials that are at hand; and, on the other, are not careful about them, but only prep. ared to encounter them. We know, indeed, that these (as well as all things) are ordered by unerring Wisdom, and are given us exactly at the right time and in due number, weight, and measure. And they continue no longer than is best; for CHANCE has no share in the government of the world. [See letter of Aug. 12, 1731, to Mrs. Pendarves.] 'THE LORD REIGNETH,' and disposes all things strongly and sweetly for the good of them that love Him. I rejoice to hear that you have now less hindrances in the way and can oftener converse with His people. Be sure to improve every one of those precious opportunities of doing and receiving good. I am often grieved to observe that, although on His part 'the gifts and calling of God are without repentance'; although He never repents of anything He has given us, but is willing to give it always; yet so very few retain the same ardor of affection which they receive either when they are justified or when they are (more fully) sanctified. Certainly they need not lose any part of their light or love. It may increase more and more. Of this you are a witness for God; and so is our dear Miss Ritchie. [See letter of Oct. 6, 1778, where the full assurance of hope is discussed.] You have not lost anything of what you have received; your light has never grown dim nor your love grown cold since the moment God first visited you with His great salvation. And I hope also you will ever retain the same affection for Yours most tenderly.

To Thomas Rankin Date: KINGSWOOD, March 12, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - It is well that Mr. Varde understands and enters into your proposal. When things are a little brought to bear, I shall hope to hear from him. I desire you to accept of two hundred of the Narrative, and of any other book you have occasion for. It gives me pleasure to hear that Sister Rankin and you are happy in each other, and that there are no jealousies or misunderstanding among the, preachers. Stand fast, striving together for the hope of the gospel! Does not John Atlay know that he should always send me a franked letter as it is The Duke of Beaufort's for instance. Half the letter costs something; the whole would cost nothing. Peace be with you and yours! - I am, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. You may have my plan from Brother Pearson. Pray tell Mr. Atlay he did not send one quarter enough of the American Narrative [For A Brief Narrative of the Revival of Religion in Virginia and Popery Calmly Considered, see Green's Bibliography, Nos. 330, 336.] either to Birstall or Bristol. Let three or four hundred of Popery Calmly Considered be sent hither directly. Why does not he send the books to the Isle of Man They want [two] sets of the Short Hymns.

To Mrs. Hall Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 15, 1779. DEAR PATTY, - So far I am come. I have little above three hundred miles to go before I turn my face southward again. I advise you to apply to two, three, or four intelligence officers with regard to Nancy. [A seamstress at Salisbury whom Mrs. Hall's husband seduced. See letter of June 20, 1755.] It is certain there are places to be had in London. And if the worst come, we must not insist upon her coming to the chapel. I do not know that she is any better for coming. She is not likely to profit less anywhere else. She was out of her wits to come to London. Mrs. Glynne [See W.H.S. iv. 217-20.] told me when I was last at Shrewsbury that she had as much work there as ever she could do, but she never would take advice, and acted contrary to the judgment of all her friends in coming to London without why or wherefore. I wonder John Pawson [Pawson was now Assistant at City Road.] and his wife do not live in my apartments. They complained of the closeness of their own. Are they neither well full nor fasting You sent me no word about Betsy Ellison. [Elizabeth, daughter of John Ellison and granddaughter of Wesley's sister Susanna. Dr. Clarke says she turned out unfortunate, and that Wesley showed her 'great kindness, often relieving her in distresses to which her imprudence had reduced her, treating her with great tenderness, and giving her advices which, had she followed, would have led her to true happiness.' For her sister Patience, see letters of Sept. 7, 1777, and Feb. 4, 1789.] I hope no news is good news. You must not forsake her. She has hardly any real friend in the world but you and me. What a blessing it is to have one Friend! How many have never found one in their lives! - I am.

To Miss Livingston Date: LONDON, July 24, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - I am exceedingly obliged to you for your openness, and it is certain you have acted herein both according to justice and mercy. You need not be afraid of my taking any step that would occasion any reflection upon you. Your behavior in the whole affair has been so exactly right, that it has exceedingly endeared you to me and made me doubly fearful of giving you the least pain; but perhaps it may occasion some trouble to me. I had no intention, when I left it last, of visiting Inverness any more; but I think I must, if my life and strength be prolonged: for I would willingly see you once more. With tender regard, I am, my dear sister, Yours very affectionately.

To Alexander Knox Date: LONDON, July 31, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ALLECK, - Come when they will, whether I am more or less busy, your letters are always welcome.... If you had firm and constant health, I do not see how you could have been saved; you would have been so admired, caressed, and applauded by your well-meaning relations, and perhaps by others, that it would have been next to impossible for you to have escaped the depths of pride and the height of vanity. But God was merciful to you, and sent this affliction to humble and prove you and show you what was in your heart. In the meantime nothing is more sure than that all these things will work together for some good. Far, far beyond thy thought His counsel shall appear, When fully He the work has wrought Which caused thy needless fear! Doubtless He may give you an earnest of it now. Does not a beam of hope break into your soul Can you help saying, God is love I I know, I feel! Jesus weeps, but loves me still Peace be with all your spirits! - I am, dear Alleck, Yours affectionately.

To James Creighton Date: BRISTOL, September 29, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, - If you are inclined to remove to England, I think you have a very fair opportunity. A curate is wanted for Madeley, Mr. Fletcher's parish, who has desired me to procure him one that can be depended on. For a change Dr. Coke would go down to Madeley at any time, and you might be a while with us in Bristol or London. You would have a large convenient house with a pleasant and fruitful garden. What the salary is I do not exactly know; but you shall not have less than sixty guineas a year. If you are inclined to accept of this, be pleased to send a line to, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. Pray direct to London.

To Thomas Wride Date: LYNN, November 1, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - You will never disoblige me by telling me anything that you think or fear. No preacher in our Connection ever dealt more plainly with me than Thomas Walsh did. And there never was any that I loved better or put more confidence in. So that it is a mere groundless imagination which some of our friends have entertained that 1 love persons less for their plain-dealing. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. I expect to be at London on Friday.

Love me still, my dear Nancy, and know me to be Yours invariably.

To Penelope Newman Date: LONDON, February 2, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - Honest Richard Condy was frightened out of his senses; and it is no wonder that he frightened others. There was just as much danger of our clergymen overbearing the laymen as of their eating them up. But all this hurry sprang from Alexander M'Nab. He let out the water; and who shall gather it up Take care you do not kill John Valton [Valton was at Bristol. See Wesley's Veterans, vi. 78; and for M'Nab, letter of Jan. 18.] I You know he is continually striving to do more than he can do. I suppose he is somewhere in your circuit; but he did not tell me where: so that I do not know how to direct to him. I am a letter in his debt. You forgot I do not visit our Societies this year. I only touch here and there on my way to Ireland. On Monday, March 13, I hope to be at Stroud, and afterwards to call at Tewkesbury, Worcester, Evesham, and Broadmarston. This is all I can do at present. - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Christopher Hopper Date: NEAR LONDON, February 16, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - I do not know that there is any matter of dispute between us, unless it be whether you should do what I desire or no. You are Assistant in Colne Circuit. I desire you to send me a plan of the circuit: you send me an answer, but without the plan. I write again: you send a second answer, telling me you have been very diligent for many years; and that you was the very person who introduced plans among us. Very good; but you send me no plan still, and till this comes everything else is wide of the mark. [See letters of Jan. 16 (to Lancelot Harrison) and Dec. 31.] - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. Why should not you write an account of your life [Hopper lost no time. His autobiography appeared in the Arminian Mag. for Jan.-March 1781. See Wesley's Veterans, i. 107-74.] Isaac Waldron, T. Lee, W. Brammah, &c. &c., were not 'strong and able men.' When any such obtrude themselves for easy circuits, speak at that time, and you do something. Mr. Hopper, At the Preaching-house, In Colne, Lancashire.

To Hannah Ball Date: DORKING, February 17, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - There is nothing strange in a particular union of spirit between two persons who truly fear God. [She had lost her old friend Samuel Wells. See heading to letter of Feb. 24, 1779, to her.] It is not at all uncommon: within few years I have known many instances of the kind. And I see not any reason why this union should be destroyed by death: I cannot conceive it is. I have myself, since her death, found a wonderful union of spirit with Fanny Cooper [Miss Cooper, whom Wesley went to see at Donnington Park in 1742. See letter of May 17 of that year.]; and have sometimes suddenly looked on one or the other side, not knowing whether I should not see her. So you may remember Mr. De Renty says to his friends, 'To die is not to be lost: our union with each other shall hereafter be more complete than it can be here.' And I have heard my mother say that she had many times been 'as sensible of the presence of the spirit of my grandfather as she could have been if she had seen him standing before her face.' So Mr. Hawes is gone: I hope in peace! Let us also be ready! - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Crosby Date: BRISTOL, March 3, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - You did well to stay with Mrs. Swaine in her distress, and you certainly cannot leave her till she returns to her father. I wish Mr. Mather would immediately appoint a Women's Class at Halifax. Many persons would meet with a woman leader, who will not meet with a man. Here and in London I have visited the Classes myself, and I do not know that I have given a band-ticket to any one who does not observe the rules of the band. That respecting Raffles in particular, I wish Mr. Mather would do just as I do herein. Sister Briscoe is a good leader, either for a band or a class. On Monday s'ennight I am to set out hence for Ireland. Peace be with all your spirits! - I am, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother.

To Thomas Wride Date: BRISTOL, March 9, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - I take nothing ill that is meant well. Therefore I take nothing amiss in your letter, because I am fully persuaded you mean well even where you judge ill. Part of what you say I believe, part I do not. But I know you patently believe it. Still, however, you must think and let think. I must act by my own conscience, not yours. And I really have a conscience. And I labor to have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man. - I am Your affectionate brother.

To George Robinson Date: MANCHESTER, March 25, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1780) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--I do not see why Brother Norris should not have a part of what is collected on the account of sickness. I am glad to hear so good an account of poor Robert Empringham. As they desire a supernumerary preacher about Whitby, he may go into that circuit directly. I desire Mr. Peacock to put a final stop to the preaching of women in his circuit. If it were suffered, it would grow, and we know not where it would end. I hope to see you and our brethren at Boston before the summer is over. Peace be with you and yours!--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Mr. Valton, At the New Room, In Bristol. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1780) Author: John Wesley --- e lived and sent him to paradise before his time. I do not know that this is your case. But I tell you whatever rises in my mind. I only want you to attain ia full reward.--I /ialways am, my dear Nancy,/p p class="Section1" style=" text-autospace:none"Yours most affectionately./p div align="center" style="text-align:center; text-autospace:none" span class="MsoNormal"span style="MS Mincho"">

To Mrs. Crosby Date: NEWCASTLE, May 11, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1780) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--Before you mentioned it, that was my purpose, not to let any one know of your writing. Therefore I do transcribe what I choose to keep and burn the originals [His wife's conduct made Wesley anxious to afford no opportunity for misunderstanding.]. Neither must the witness supersede the fruits, nor the fruits the witness of the Spirit. Let other men talk this way or that, the word of the Lord shall stand. I believe your spending a little time at P--may be of use. Probably it will remove their prejudice against Christian perfection. But if Mr. T[aylor] has a mind to marry our friend, I think neither you nor I shall forward it. She is far happier, since she is free, so to abide. Do you find any tendency to pride Do you find nothing like anger Is your mind never ruffled, put out of tune Do you never feel any useless desire any desire of pleasure, of ease, of approbation, or increase of fortune Do you find no stubbornness, sloth, or self-will, no unbelief Certainly the more freely you speak to me the better. I found what you said in your last helpful. It is of great use to have our minds stirred up by way of remembrance, even of the things we know already. I speak of myself very little to any one, were it only for fear of hurting them. I have found exceeding few that could bear it; so I am constrained to repress my natural openness. I find scarce any temptation from any thing in the world; my danger is from persons. Oh for an heart to praise my God, An heart from sin set free! Dear Sally, adieu.

Give me leave, my Lord, to speak more freely still: perhaps it is the last time I shall trouble your Lordship. I know your Lordship's abilities and extensive learning; I believe, what is far more, that your Lordship fears God. I have heard that your Lordship is unfashionably diligent in examining the candidates for Holy Orders--yea, that your Lordship is generally at the pains of examining them yourself. Examining them! In what respects Why, whether they understand a little Latin and Greek and can answer a few trite questions in the science of divinity l Alas, how little does this avail! Does your Lordship examine whether they serve Christ or Belial whether they love God or the world whether they ever had any serious thoughts about heaven or hell whether they have any real desire to save their own souls or the souls of others If not, what have they to do with Holy Orders and what will become of the souls committed to their care My Lord, I do by no means despise learning; I know the value of it too well. But what is this, particularly in a Christian minister, compared to piety What is it in a man that has no religion ' As a jewel in a swine's snout.' Some time since, I recommended to your Lordship a plain man, whom I had known above twenty years as a person of deep, genuine piety and of unblameable conversation. But he neither understood Greek nor Latin; and he affirmed in so many words that he believed it was his duty to preach whether he was ordained or no. I believe so too. What became of him since, I know not; but I suppose he received Presbyterian ordination, and I cannot blame him if he did. He might think any ordination better than none. I do not know that Mr. Hoskins had any favour to ask of the Society. He asked the favour of your Lordship to ordain him that he might minister to a little flock in America. But your Lordship did not see good to ordain him; but your Lordship did see good to ordain and send into America other persons who knew something of Greek and Latin, but who knew no more of saving souls than of catching whales.

To John Valton Date: BRISTOL, October 1, 1780, Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1780) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,-I expected the state of Manchester Circuit to be just such as you have found it. But the power of the Lord is able to heal them. I fear Sister Mayer was left unemployed because she loved perfection. If you find a few more of the same spirit, I believe you will find them employment. The accommodations everywhere will mend if the preachers lovingly exert themselves. I am glad you take some pains for the new chapel. Our brother Brocklehurst will do anything that is reasonable. In one thing only you and I do not agree; but perhaps we shall when we have prayed over it: I mean the giving me an extract of your Life [See letters of April 21 and Dec. 19]. I cannot see the weight of your reasons against it. ' Some are superficial.' What then All are not; Brother Mather's and Haime's in particular. Add one to these; a more weighty one if you can. You know what to omit and what to insert. I really think you owe it (in spite of shame and natural timidity) to God and me and your brethren. Pray for light in this matter.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Samuel Bardsley Date: NEAR LONDON, February 10, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, -- I did not doubt but you would agree with the people of Sheffield. [Rogers was Assistant at Sheffield, with Bardsley as third preacher.] They are a lively and affectionate people. I am glad you were so successful in your labor of love for them. That assistance was very seasonable. That misunderstanding, which was troublesome for a season, may now be buried for ever. I am perfectly well satisfied, both of the honesty and affection, both of Brother Woodcroft and Brother Birks. [Samuel Birks, of Thorpe. See for portrait of him, aged ninety-five, Methodist Mug. 1825, p. 718; and Everett’s Methodism in Sheffield.] So Satan’s devices are brought to naught. I doubt not but James Rogers and you recommend our books in every place, and the Magazines in particular, which will be a testimony for me when I am no more seen. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother.

To Ann Bolton Date: LONDON. February 20, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR NANCY, -- Yesterday I returned from a little tour through Norfolk, and had the pleasure of finding your letter. You know I feel with you and for you. But I am almost at a loss to understand what trials can sit so heavy upon you! You are with those whom you love and who love you. You have in general tolerable health. You have no husband, no children to perplex you. How came you to be so weighted down with care Think aloud, my dear, my much-loved friend. Explain yourself. Be as particular as you please. You need not fear my telling others. You have known me since you were little more than a child. Has Neddy [Her brother. See letters of May 8, 1774, and Sept. 9, 1781, to her.] no hope of getting out of his trouble Is his farm rented above its value Is it on his sake only that you grieve Or are other trials added to this By all means accept the providential invitation to Bristol. My dear Nancy, adieu. On Monday se’nnight I set out for Bath and Bristol. On Monday, March 8 [5], I hope to be at Newbury; on Monday, 15th, [Monday was March 19, and that evening he preached at Stroud, and on the 20th at Worcester. See next letter.] at Stroud; on Tuesday the x6th at Worcester. You will contrive to be with me where you can. I do not find any fault with you at present. Only I am afraid you are not careful enough of your health. Otherwise I rejoice that I have confidence in you in all things. -- I am, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother.

To his Niece Sarah Wesley Date: MANCHESTER, March 31, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SALLY, -- The expression of ‘eating and drinking unworthily’ has one, and only one, meaning affixed to it by St. Paul, who is the only inspired writer that uses that expression. He means by it that particular sin of which the Corinthians were then guilty -- the snatching one before another his own supper, so that one was hungry and another was drunken. Now, it is certain you are in no danger of this any more than of committing murder. Deadness, coldness, wandering thoughts of various kinds are totally distinct from it. And now, when the worst of these occur, you may answer with pious Kempis, ‘Go, go, thou unclean spirit. These are not my thoughts but thine, and thou shalt answer for them to God.’ [Imitation, 111. vi.] God is now aiming, in all His dealings with you, to bring you to a knowledge of yourself as one in whom by nature dwells no good thing. And this He is particularly pursuing when you approach His Table. Were He to give you at that time remarkable joy or sweetness, it would not answer His design; neither were He to give you much contrition and brokenness of heart. Therefore He leaves you in great measure to your own dull, unfeeling heart, that you may know yourself in order to know Him. But nevertheless this is the way; walk thou in it, and in due time you shall reap if you faint not. But you must needs have some companions in the way; for how can one be warm alone [See letter of Nov. 15, 1780.] I wish you to be acquainted with Miss Johnson, [ Mary Johnson. See Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, p. 504; and letter of April 12.]’ who lodges in Oxford Street at No. 368, and meets in Mrs. Thackeray’s class. She is deeply mourning after God, whom she once knew and loved. She is of a tender, sensible temper; and I am certain your spirits would quickly take acquaintance with each other. You want a friend of your own sex and nearly your own age, and I know not one in London that would fit you better. I pray God that you may resolutely choose Him for your portion; and am, my dear Sally,

To Hester Ann Roe Date: LIVERPOOL, April 10, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR HETTY, -- Many of our brethren and sisters in London, during that great outpouring of the Spirit, [In 1762. See Works, xi. 406.] spoke of several new blessings which they had attained. But after all, they could find nothing higher than pure love, on which the full assurance of hope generally attends. This the inspired writings always represent as the highest point; only there are innumerable degrees of it. The plerophory (or full assurance) of faith is such a clear conviction that I am now in the favor of God as excludes all doubt and fear concerning it. The full assurance of hope is such clear confidence that I shall enjoy the glory of God as excludes all doubt and fear concerning this. And this confidence is totally different from an opinion that 'no saint shall fall from grace.' It has no relation to it. Bold, presumptuous men often substitute this base counter in the room of that precious confidence. But it is observable the opinion remains just as strong while men are sinning and serving the devil as while they are serving God. Holiness or unholiness does not affect it in the least degree. Whereas, the giving way to anything unholy, either in life or heart, clouds the full assurance of hope; which cannot subsist any longer than the heart cleaves steadfastly to God. I am persuaded the storm which met us in the teeth and drove us back was not a casual but a providential thing; therefore I lay aside the thought of seeing Ireland at present. [See letters of Feb. 20 (to Thomas Rutherford) and April 12.] -- I am, my dear Hetty, Always yours in tender affection.

To Thomas Rutherford Date: LOUTH, July 4, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, -- I got half-way again, as far as the Isle of Man; but I could get no farther. What He doth we know not now, but we shall know hereafter. I wish Isabella and you much happiness, which you cannot fail of if you have much holiness. Therefore the certain way to make each other happy is to strengthen each other's hands in God. Some time since, I desired Brother Moore [Henry Moore was his colleague at Lisburn, and their wives were sisters. He had just removed from Tanderagee. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 345; and letter of Feb. 23, 1783.] to procure and send me as particular account as possible of that odd affair near Tanderagee; I mean with regard to the house which was so strangely disturbed. I wish he would do it without delay. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mary Bishop Date: NEAR LEEDS, July 17, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- When the school began at Publow, [See letter of May 21 to her.] it was in all respects a school after my own heart, conducted exactly on the same principles as that of Miss Bosanquet at Leytonstone. But it declined from its original simplicity, I know not how, by slow and insensible degrees indeed, so insensible that I hardly know what to blame, and so know not how to cure it. If I have to meet the Society at Bristol again, I shall kill or cure those unwise and unkind parents who make their children finer than themselves. I believe I shall make their ears tingle. As to you, I advise you, first, to be a Bible Christian yourself inwardly and outwardly. Be not an hair's breadth more conformable to the fashions of the world than you was when I last saw you. Then train up your children in the selfsame way. Say to them with all mildness and firmness, ‘Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ.’ Whoever is pleased or displeased, keep to this -- to Christian, primitive simplicity. Perhaps at first you will lose some scholars thereby; but regard not that: God will provide you more. And be assured nothing shall be wanting that is in the power of, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Francis Wolfe Date: YORK, July 30, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- To allow money for the keeping of children is not the business of the Conference, but of the circuit wherein a preacher labors. So it is expressly appointed in the Minutes. I do not judge it is expedient for you to remain any longer in the West of England. [Now at Redruth, Cornwall West. He was reappointed there the following month.] I am glad to hear that your spirit revives. You need not ‘let Him go except He bless you.’ -- I am, dear Franky, Your affectionate brother.

To Elijah Bush Date: COLEFORD, September 11, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--I was much concerned yesterday when I heard you were likely to marry a woman against the consent of your parents. I have never in an observation of fifty years known such a marriage attended with a blessing. I know not how it should be, since it is flatly contrary to the fifth commandment. I told my own mother, when pressing me to marry, ‘I dare not allow you a positive voice herein; I dare not marry a person because you bid me. But I must allow you a negative voice: I will marry no person if you forbid. I know it would be a sin against God.’ Take care what you do. Mr. S----- is not a proper judge; he hopes to separate you from the Methodists; and I expect, if you take this step, that will be the end. -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Hall Date: BATH, September 15, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR PATTY, -- But when will the hundred pounds come I hear nothing about that. But fifty pounds of it were bespoke by him that sent me the first notice, and what could be done less For, you know, the messenger of good news should always be rewarded. However, if we live to meet again, probably something may be done without waiting for the legacy; and it is not impossible that you should procure half an hour's very private conversation into the bargain. I say still, you are one of the youngest women of your years that I know, [See letter of May 28 to her.] and perhaps it is your fervor that keeps you alive as well as keeps you from the gout and stone, to which you know we have an hereditary right. God does all things well. -- I am, dear Patty, Your affectionate friend and Brother.

To Thomas Davenport Date: LONDON, December 2, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- I have some remembrance of receiving such a letter as you mention above a year ago. But as there was no name subscribed I did not know how to direct an answer. Your case is plain. You are in the hands of a wise Physician, who is lancing your sores in order to heal them. He has given you now the spirit of fear. But it is in order to the spirit of love and of a sound mind. You have now received the spirit of bondage. Is it not the forerunner of the Spirit of adoption He is not afar off. Look up! And expect Him to cry in your heart, Abba, Father! He is nigh that justifieth! that justifieth the ungodly and him that worketh not! If you are fit for hell, you are just fit for Him! If you are a mere sinner, He cannot cast you out! This evening, when our Society meets, we will spread the case before the Lord. And I trust it will not be a long time before your eyes shall see His salvation! -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother.

To James ------ Date: LONDON, January 6, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JAMES, -- You may meet with Brother Alderman, Highland, or any other leader you choose. But I am willing to hear what objection you have to James Dewey and the two other leaders you refer to. You may know them better than I do. -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To Hester Ann Roe Date: LONDON, January 17, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR HETTY, -- In the success of Mr. Leach’s preaching we have one proof of a thousand that the blessing of God always attends the publishing of full salvation as attainable now by simple faith. But there is a danger here which is to be carefully guarded against--namely, lest the other preachers should be jealous of his success. This has been a very common case. And you can hardly conceive what a grievous hindrance it has always been to the work of God. Both he himself, therefore, and all that love him should do everything that is in their power to prevent it; he especially, by an humble, condescending, obliging behavior to his fellow laborers. And it will be prudent for you all not to speak too strongly in commendation of him in their hearing; for, you know, ‘the spirit that is in us lusteth to envy.’ I have never at all repented of my late journey to Chester [In April 1782. See Journal, vi. 313.]; a flame was kindled both there and at Wrexham, which I trust will not soon be put out. I do not know that I have spent a day at Chester with so much satisfaction for many a year. This afternoon I was agreeably surprised by a letter from our dear Miss Ritchie. [See his reply on Jan. 19.] It really seems as if God, in answer to many prayers, has lent her to us yet a little longer. He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up again. Wise are all His ways! I am not assured that there is not something preternatural in those pains which you frequently experience. Not improbably they are caused by a messenger of Satan, who is permitted to buffet you. But all is well; you find in this and all things His grace is sufficient for you. -- I always am, my dear Hetty, Most affectionately yours.

To Robert Cart Brackenbury Date: BRISTOL, March 9, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- The letter you refer to as giving me an account of Mrs. Brackenbury’s illness I have never seen. I did not hear anything of it till I received Mr. Collins’s letter from Raithby. What a comfort it is that we know the Lord reigneth, and that He disposes all things in heaven and earth in the very manner which He sees will be most for His own glory and for the good of those that love Him. I am firmly persuaded the present dispensation, severe as it may appear, will be found in the event a means of greater blessings than any you have yet received. Even already you find the consolations of the Holy One are not small with you. And He enables you to make the right use of this providence by devoting yourself more entirely to His service. I am glad you have such a friend as Mr. Collins [Brian Bury Collins. See letter of June 14, 1780.] with you. I will write to Dr. Coke and desire him to look out for such a family near London as you want. I am not afraid of your speaking too little, but of your speaking too much. Stay! A thought just comes into my mind. On April the 4th I expect to be at Manchester, in order to visit the Societies in Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire; and thence to proceed (if God permit) to Scotland. Perhaps it would be of use if you took part of the journey with me. You may let me know your thoughts by a line directed to Manchester. Let Mr. Collins and you strengthen each other's hands in God.

To Francis Wrigley Date: MANCHESTER, April 4, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have no objection to the judgment of the rector of Trowbridge; and it seems this would stand between you and blame, as no one could condemn you without first condemning him. I do not know anything that is amiss in the behavior either of Brother Fowler or his wife. But I do not know that he is called to preach. Certainly he should not go where they are not willing to hear him. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To John Bredin Date: BIRMINGHAM, July 9, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Your letter reached me this morning. I know not whether it would not be best for you to spend the ensuing year in London. There you might have the best medical advice, and might preach more or less as your strength allowed. [See letters of Oct. 19, 1781, and Aug. 4, 1782, to him.] Adam Clarke may easily get over to Liverpool or Chester; but ships sometimes go from Newry to Bristol, and very frequently from Dublin, especially at this time of the year. My kind love to Alleck Knox. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Penelope Newman Date: July 12, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- I do not yet see any reason why Jonathan Coussins should not labor next year in the Gloucester-shire Circuit. [He was then in the Sarum Circuit, and in August was duly appointed to Gloucester.] But I do not use to determine things of this kind absolutely before the Conference. Afflictions, you know, are only blessings in disguise. ‘He prepares occasions of fighting that thou mayest conquer.’ Whenever you have an opportunity of making a little excursion it will be for good. -- I am, dear Penny, Your affectionate brother.

To Joseph Benson Date: NEAR LONDON, August 3, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH, -- Do not you know that all the preachers cannot leave a circuit at once Therefore, if you left it, Brother Hopper could not. Perhaps, likewise, I can depend upon your judgment more than that of another man. Two or three years ago, when the kingdom was in imminent danger, I made an offer to the Government of raising some men. The Secretary of War (by the King's order) wrote me word that ‘it was not necessary; but if it ever should be necessary, His Majesty would let me know.’ I never renewed the offer, and never intended it. But Captain Webb, without my knowing anything of the matter, went to Colonel Barr, the new Secretary of War, and renewed that offer. [Colonel Barr became Paymaster of the Forces in July. See letter of July 24.] The Colonel (I verily believe, to avoid his importunity) asked him how many men we could raise. But the Colonel is out of place. So the thing is at an end. I read over both the sermons; but I did not see anything materially wrong in either. -- I am, with love to Sister Benson, Your affectionate brother. We will consider what you propose.

To John Bredin Date: LONDON. August 4, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- In your present state you must not attempt to travel. It is as much as your life is worth. [See letters of July 9 and Nov. 30 to him.] You may be a supernumerary in whatever place you judge most advisable; and the little salary, the 12, we will allow from hence. I do not understand what is the accusation against Hugh Moore. [Moore moved from Londonderry to Aberdeen, See letter of April 10.] Simply administering an oath is a folly; but I know not that it is contrary to any law. If he is afraid of staying at Coleraine (although I know not why), let him change with a Sligo or Castlebar preacher. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mr. Joseph Taylor, At the PreachingDate: FROME, September 12, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- I have lately heard, to my no small surprise, that a person professing himself a Quaker, and supposed to be a man of some character, has confidently reported that he has been at Sunderland himself and inquired into the case of Elizabeth Hobson, that she was a woman of a very indifferent character, that the story she told was purely her own invention, and that John Wesley himself was now fully convinced that there was no truth in it. From what motive a man should invent and publish all over England (for I have heard this in various places) an whole train of absolute, notorious falsehoods, I cannot at all imagine. On the contrary, I declare to all the world, (1) that Elizabeth Hobson was an eminently pious woman, that she lived and died without the least blemish of any kind, without the least stain upon her character; (2) that the relation could not possibly have been her own invention, as there were many witnesses to several parts of it, as Mr. Parker, the two attorneys whom she employed, Miss Hesmer, and many others; and (3) that I myself am fully persuaded that every circumstance of it is literally and punctually true. I know that those who fashionably deny the existence of spirits are hugely disgusted at accounts of this kind. I know that they incessantly labor to spread this disgust among those that are of a better mind, because if one of these accounts be admitted their whole system falls to the ground. But whoever is pleased or displeased, I must testify what I believe to be the truth. Indeed, I never myself saw the appearance of an unbodied spirit; and I never saw the commission of a murder. Yet upon the testimony of unexceptionable witnesses, I can firmly believe both one and the other.

To William Robarts Date: FROME, September 12, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- I was much concerned when I saw you last; and as ‘life for delays no time will give,’ especially my life, which is far spent, I take the first opportunity of speaking once for all. You are in a large way of business, wherein I suppose you dear one (if not two or three) hundred a year. Over and above that you have an estate which, if you gave above thirty years' purchase, is an hundred a year. You have neither son nor daughter; and yet you cannot afford sixpence a month for the Magazine! Nay, you could not afford to give a guinea in a pressing case, viz. at the instance of an old tried friend! Are you, then, in more debt than you can pay Or is your trade gone, so that it will no more than keep your house Do you clear nothing in the year If so, you may still lay up the annual income of your estate. (What you could sell it for is nothing to the purpose; you do not need to sell it.) Are you not, then, ‘laying up treasures upon earth’ And how is this consistent with Scripture Surely no more than living in adultery or habitual drunkenness. Those words of St. Paul have for some time past been much impressed on my mind, ‘If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, with such an one, no not to eat.’ Now, I cannot dear you of covetousness, deep, uncommon covetousness, such as I very rarely meet with. I do not know that in forty years I have asked a guinea of any other man that has denied me! So I have done! I give you up to God. I do not know that you will any more be troubled with Your former Friend. [Wesley was mistaken in his judgment, as the following reply from Robarts on September 16 shows. He was evidently using all possible economy that he might escape failure in business.]

To William Robarts Date: BRISTOL, September 19, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- Strange! Have you not an estate Does it bring you in nothing Have you not a large trade Do you gain nothing thereby Then how can you avoid ‘laying up treasures on earth’ I want to know: I desire to justify you. To this Robarts replies: REVERAND SIR, -- In this respect I know nobody but you that condemns me; my heart, my God does not. I therefore need no justification. I have already spoke and wrote, but to no avail; therefore desire to be silent till you can cast one glance of charity, at least of candor, though I am not worthy of your address or subscription. I hope you will for this once admit the name of your once esteemed W. R. [See letter of Aug. 3, 1783.]

To Robert Carr Brackenbury Date: LONDON, January 10, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- As I expect to remain in London till the beginning of March, I hope to have the pleasure of spending a little time with you before I set out on my spring and summer journeys, which I shall probably continue as long as I live. And who would wish to live for any meaner purpose than to serve God in our generation I know my health and strength are continued for this thing. And if ever I should listen to that siren song, ‘Spare thy life,’ I believe my Master would spare me no longer, but soon take me away. It pleases Him to deal with you in a different way. He frequently calls you not so much to act as to suffer. And you may well say, -- O take Thy way! Thy way is best: Grant or deny me ease. This is but tuning of my breast To make the music please. [Adapted, in his Chariestown Hymn-Book, from George Herbert's The Temple, ‘The Temper’: Yet take Thy way; for sure Thy way is best: Stretch or contract me, Thy poor debtor; This is but tuning of my breast, To make the music better.] I am glad you are still determined to do What you can, and to do it without delay. But others are not of this mind. I have just received a letter from Mr. Oddie, [See letter of Sept. 26, 1774.] formerly one of our traveling preachers, informing me, whereas it has pleased God to take away his dear partner, he is resolved again to give up himself to the work, -- after he has settled his worldly business, which he thinks will take but sixteen or seventeen months! Would one think he had ever read the Epistle of St. James or that he had ever heard those words, ‘What is your life It is even a vapor, which appeareth and vanisheth away’ Commending you to Him who is able to save you to the uttermost, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To John Mason Date: BRISTOL, March 7, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I do not know that there was anything amiss in those letters. I hope the ground of complaint is now taken away. I was in the same case with you till the last meetings of the trustees. Five of them then agreed to sign the bonds. Hitherto it has been everybody’s business and nobody's business. I think now it will be done effectually. Great bodies usually move slowly. Had we five or seven instead of five-and-twenty trustees, they would not have been so unwieldy. I hope you go on well in the Isle; and am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To his Brother Charles Date: DUBLIN, April 25, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, -- How extremely odd is the affair of Mr. Abraham! [See letters of Feb. 20, 1782, and May 2, 1783 (to his brother).] I scarce ever remember the like. It really seems to be a providential incident which fairly acquits us of one that would have been no honor to us. But how odd also is this affair of Miss Freeman! [See letters of April 4 and May 2 to his brother.] Since I left her at Sir Philip Gibbes’s preparing for her journey to Bath, I have not had so much as one line from her. Yesterday I had a letter from Miss Gibbes and another from her sister; but she is not even mentioned either in one or the other. Do you know what is become of her Is she ill Surely she is not slipped back to Paris! All is quiet here. God has made our enemies to be at peace with us. In about ten days I hope to be at Chester. Peace be with you and yours!

To John Watson Date: DUBLIN, April 25, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Yesterday I received yours from Perth; but I do not know how to answer it. If Brother McLean has been able to do good at Perth or Dunkeld, it would be worth while to take a room. But truly I think, if the Highlanders will not pay for their own room, they are not worthy of the preaching. To labor and pay for our own labor is not right before God or man. Are you able to undertake a circuit You may direct your next to London. -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To his Brother Charles Date: DUBLIN, May 2, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, -- In three or four days we hope to embark. When we land, you may hear farther; but at a venture you may direct to Chester: and don’t forget the verses. I marvel Miss Freeman does not answer my letters. [See letter of April 25 to him.] Surely she is not affronted at anything. We parted in much friendship. I think verily you will keep out of debt while I live, if you will give me an hint now and then. We must positively let Mr. Abraham [This note is written by Charles Wesley on the letter: ‘The clergyman who accompanied me in my first journey to Londonderry. He returned to London, but was quite unmanageable. I saw him there in 1784.’] drop, and both his relations with him and near him. I am in hopes T. M. will satisfy Dr. Coke. I suppose she loses her annuity if she owns her marriage. I have not seen Mr. Barnard. [See letter of May 12, 1785.] We had an exceeding happy Conference, which concluded this morning. I wish all our English preachers were of the same spirit with the Irish, among whom is no jarring string. I never saw such simplicity and teachableness run through a body of preachers before. Tell me all you know of the good Congress, the loyalists, and the Colonies. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu!

To Mrs. Ferguson Date: HARWICH, June 12, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- Hitherto God has helped us. As the weather last night was exceeding rough, the captain did not think advisable to sail; for which I was not sorry. We expect to sail this morning, as it seems the storm is over; and probably we shall see Helvoetsluys to-morrow. Sally and my other companions are in perfect health, and are all in good spirits; knowing that they are under His protection whom the winds and the seas obey. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Dowries Date: NEAR LONDON, November 21, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- Through the blessing of God I find no difference at all between the health and strength which are now given me and that which I had forty years ago. Only I had then many pains which I have not now. You are enabled to give a very clear and standing proof that weakness of nerves cannot prevent joy in the Lord. Your nerves have been remarkably weak, and that for many years, but still your soul can magnify the Lord and your spirit rejoice in God your Savior! Your affectionate brother.

To Captain Richard Williams Date: LONDON, December 10, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have directed your lines to the editor of the General Post. But both he and Mr. Pine will insert in their papers only what they believe will promote the sale of them. You send me an agreeable account of the work of God in Cornwall and in some places that I do not know. I know nothing of Wheal Rose, nor of the Copper House at Hayle: I hope Mr. Edwards will continue in the same state he is now. I thought the Calvinists were resolved to run away with the Society at Kirly. But the Universal Lover of Souls is stronger than them! He hath said, ‘Hitherto shall you come, and no farther!’ The work of God (Brother Asbury sends me word) goes on both steadily and swiftly in America. -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To Robert Carr Brackenbury Date: LONDON, January 4, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, - I rejoice to hear that you have had a safe passage, and that you have preached both in Guernsey and Jersey. [See Lelivre's Histoire du Mthodisme dans les les de la Manche, p. 185.] We must not expect many conveniences at first: hitherto it is the day of small things. I should imagine the sooner you begin to preach in French the better: surely you need not be careful about accuracy. Trust God, and speak as well as you can. Peace be with your spirit! I wish you many happy years; and am, dear sir, Your very affectionate friend and servant.

To John Valton Date: LONDON, January 6, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - I do not suppose Bristol water would have done you much good; but exercise and change of air would. I do not know Dr. Davison [See letter of Oct. 13 to Valton.]; but I have seen (perhaps thrice) more patients than he has done. And I know many that have perished by swallowing large quantities of powdered wood. Beware of this, and you may live and do good. I shall have no objection to Mr. Taylor if he does not baptize children; but this I dare not suffer. I shall shortly be obliged to drop all the preachers who will not drop this. Christ has sent them not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. [See letters of May 19, 1783, and March 4, 1784 (to Percival).] I wonder any of them are so unkind as to attempt it, when they know my sentiments. We have heard twice from Dr. Coke. They all go on well. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Robert Cart Brackenbury Date: LONDON, January 10, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, - While those poor sheep were scattered abroad, without any shepherd and without any connection with each other, it is no wonder that they were cold and dead. I am glad you have gathered a few of them together; and surely, if prayer be made concerning it, God will provide you with a convenient place to meet in. Perhaps an application to the gentlemen who have hired the ballroom might not be without success. 'Tis pity but you had the Earnest Appeal to present to the governor as well as the minister. I trust both you and our newly connected brethren will overcome evil with good. We can easily print the Rules here, and send them down with some other books. 'Tis good that every one should know our whole plan. We do not want any man to go on blindfold. Peace be with your spirit! - I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend.

To Thomas Carlill Date: LONDON, January 12, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - It gives me pleasure to have so good an account of all your fellow laborers. Go on in one mind and one spirit, and your labor will not be in vain. I have received one or two uncommon letters from your wise friend at Lowth. It would have been cruelty to the people if you had suffered him to continue leader of a class. Be in earnest to spread the magazines. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Bailey Date: BATH, March 3, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - I am glad to hear that Mr. Bailey recovers his health and that he is not quite unemployed. The more both he and you are employed for a good Master the better; seeing it is a sure truth that every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. On Monday, April 5 (if nothing unforeseen prevent), I expect to be at Stockport, and Tuesday, 6th, at Manchester. [His route was varied a little, so that he did not reach Manchester till April 10.] - I am, my dear Rachel, Yours affectionately.

To Susanna Knapp Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- [BRISTOL, March 4, 1784.] MY DEAR SUKY, - I am glad to find you are still desiring and seeking the best portion. To-morrow fortnight I hope to see you at Worcester. It gives me pleasure to learn that Mrs. Knapp's health is in some measure restored. We are sure of this - Health we shall have if health be best. I am a good deal better than I was in autumn; but we are always well while we are in our Lord's hands. - I am, my dear Suky, Yours affectionately.

To Brian Bury Collins Date: BRISTOL, March 11, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, - When I was at Bath last, I found a very uncommon liberty of spirit, both in prayer and preaching, which I supposed to be partly owing to the spirit of the congregation, who appeared more than usually serious. I am therefore a little surprised that you should find less liberty than you usually do. [If] you have not since then found any change for the better; if you still feel that restraint upon your spirit at Bath, I am of the same judgment with you: it seems to be a divine indication that you are called to other places. Should you think well of taking either a short or a long journey with me, I am to set out on Monday morning for Stroud. I have an easy horse; and whenever you are tired with riding, you may come into the chaise. If you like the proposal, come hither either upon Sunday morning or afternoon. If you choose it, you may preach in Temple Church. [Wesley preached at Bath on March 3.] I am a little embarrassed with regard to Dr. Witherspoon. It is natural for you to be prejudiced in his favor. But he cannot be surprised if most Englishmen are strongly prejudiced on the other side: when they consider him as the grand instrument of tearing away children from their parents to which they were united by the most sacred ties, so that I know not with what face I can mention him, or with what probability of success. Wishing all happiness to you and yours, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. If you do not come, you will send a line directly.

I doubt you were never convinced of the necessity of this great change. And there is now greater danger than ever that you never will; that you will be diverted from the thought of it by a train of new notions, new practices, new modes of worship: all of which put together (not to consider whether they are unscriptural, superstitious, and idolatrous, or no) - all, I say, put together, do not amount to one grain of true, vital, spiritual religion. O Sammy, you are out of your way! You are out of God's way! You have not given Him your heart. You have not found - nay, it is Well if you have so much as sought happiness in God! And poor zealots, while you are in this state of mind, would puzzle you about this or the other Church! O fools and blind! Such guides as these lead men by shoals to the bottomless pit. My dear Sammy, your first point is to repent and believe the Gospel. Know yourself a poor, guilty, helpless sinner! Then know Jesus Christ and Him crucified! Let the Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God, and let the love of God be shed abroad in your heart by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto you; and then, if you have no better work, I will talk with you of transubstantiation or purgatory. Meantime I commend you to Him who is able to guide you into all truth; and am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate Uncle.

To William Pitt, First Lord of the Treasury Date: BATH, September 6, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, - Your former goodness, shown to one of my relations Mr. Thomas Ellison, [For John Ellison, see letter of Sept. 7, 1777; and for Captain Webb, May 25, 1782.] emboldens me to take the liberty of recommending to your notice an old friend, Lieutenant Webb. On my mentioning formerly some of his services to Lord North, his lordship was pleased to order him 100 a year. But as it has since been reduced, it is hardly a maintenance for himself and his family. If you would be so good as to remember him in this or any other way, I should esteem it a particular favor. Will you excuse me, sir, for going out of my province by hinting a few things which have been long upon my mind If those hints do not deserve any further notice, they may be forgiven and forgotten. New taxes must undoubtedly be imposed; but may not more money be produced by the old ones For instance: 1. When the land tax is four shillings in the pound, I know some towns which pay regularly seven- or fivepence. Nay, I know one town where they pay one penny in the pound. Is there no help for this 2. As to window tax: I know a gentleman who has near a hundred windows in his house; he told me he paid for twenty. 3. The same gentleman told me, 'We have above an hundred men servants in this town, but not above ten are paid for.' 4. I firmly believe that' in Cornwall alone the King is defrauded of half a million yearly in customs. What does this amount to in all Great Britain Surely not so little as five millions. Is there no way of extirpating those smuggling villains, notwithstanding their Honorable or Right Honorable abettors

To Richard Rodda Date: LONDON, October 13, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - I have no objection to your having a third preacher in the circuit. [Birmingham had three preachers next Conference.] But what to say of John Oliver I know not. [Oliver married Elizabeth Booth. See Journal, iv. 70-1; and letter of Oct. 25, 1780.] He has been greatly to blame. But who can tell whether he be inwardly changed or not Your proposal of building a new preaching-house I like well, provided it can be done without bringing any burthen upon the Conference. Complaint is made to me that the preaching is taken from Stourshead. If so, I am sorry for it. Peace be with you and yours! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To John Valton Date: LONDON, October 13, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - Dr. Davison's advice was good. I desire you would not offer to preach within these four weeks. I was suspended for near four months; but good is the will of the Lord. I suppose nettle tea is the best bracer in the world; and next that, elixir of vitriol (ten drops in a glass of water at ten or eleven in the morning). I am inclined to think that temptation is purely preternatural. I was strongly assaulted by it toward the close of my fever, when I could hardly set a foot to the ground. Many years ago I told you the case of Mr. Colley, who was just in your case. He married and died. And do we not know All the promises are sure To persevering prayer I am ever yours.

To Martha Chapman Date: NEAR LONDON, November 3, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - I was a little disappointed at your not seeing me at Wallingford, as you used to do, before I went away. [He preached at Wallingford on Oct. 18, and left next morning at 7.30.] But I took it for granted there was some circumstance which I did not know; so I did not blame you, as I am not ready to condemn those I love. I am glad you do not let go your confidence or lose the witness of your sanctification. Take care that you lose not any of the things that you have gained, but that you receive a full reward. Certainly it is a most uncomfortable thing to lose any part of what God hath wrought in us. I wonder how any that have lost the love of God can find any rest in their souls till they have regained it. It was well for you that God did not suffer you to find rest in any creature. He had better things in store for you. One more degree of His love makes you large amends even in the present world for every other loss. - I am, dear Patty, Your affectionate brother.

To Thomas Taylor Date: LONDON, December 24, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - In fifty years I have not met with six mothers who did not suffer their children to cry aloud - no, nor seriously endeavored it. So that I see no manner of need to caution them against that extreme. To speak without reserve, I believe John Valton to be a better Assistant than either you or me. I believe he has more of the Spirit of God resting upon him and is more deeply devoted to God than almost any man or woman I know. And I do not think myself a jot better than him because I was born forty years before him. But I earnestly desire he would go to Bristol, and that you would supply his place as Assistant I am of opinion this is the only possible means of restoring his strength. - I am, with kind love to Sister Taylor, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. I corrected the last part of the new Hymn-Book this morning. [A Collection of Pslams and Hymns for the Lord's Day. See Green's Bibliography, No. 378.]

To Mrs. Freeman Date: LONDON, February 1, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - So strange things come to pass I I did not expect to hear of Mr. Smyth's 'living in lodgings.' I do not remember the person who is so kind as to offer me a lodging; and I know no reason why I should not accept of it if I live to see Dublin again.' It gives me pleasure to hear that the work of God flourishes among you. I did not doubt but it would when He sent that earnest couple [Mr. and Mrs. James Rogers.] to Dublin. He will send a blessing with them wherever they go. And that you and yours may partake of it more and more is the wish of, my dear sister, Yours affectionately.

To Samuel Bardsley Date: LONDON, February 12, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, - Mr. Wesley desires me to inform you that he is glad to find that you go on so well in your circuit, and hopes that the work of the Lord will prosper more and more. Mr. Wesley cannot say anything positive respecting his coming into your circuit, but does intend to contrive to pay you a visit, though his usual way, you know, is but once in two years. I suppose you will know in time before he comes. Peace be with your spirit! - I am Yours affectionately,

To Mrs. Wren Date: BIRMINGHAM, March 26, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - I thank you for the clear and circumstantial account you have given me of the manner when God wrought upon your soul. As tie wrought the work both of justification and sanctification so distinctly, you have the less temptation to cast away your confidence. But you cannot keep it unless you are zealous of good works. Be fruitful, therefore, in every good work, and God shall renew you in His whole image. - I am Yours affectionately.

To Joseph Taylor Date: LIVBRPOOL, April 7, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH, - I do not see that I can in conscience employ Brother Thomas [Taylor was the Assistant at Gloucester, with Barnabas Thomas as his colleague. Thomas went to Oxfordshire next Conference. See letter of March 25.] as a traveling preacher. Do not you know what I have often said I would not employ an apostle as such if he could not preach in the morning. And this he cannot do. Neither is he able, if he was willing, regularly to keep a circuit. Be faithful to God and the people, and your own soul! And keep an active, zealous man, Mr. McGeary, [See letters of Feb. 25, 1785 (heading to John Stretton), and Feb. 20, 1787.] while you have him. Else there is want of a preacher in the Canterbury Circuit. I thank you for the account of Brother Tregellas ['Some Account of the Death of Mr. John Tregellas, of St. Agnes, in Cornwall,' who died on April 28, 1784, at the age of twenty-one, appeared in the Arminian Magazine, 1786, pp. 149-50, signed 'Joseph Taylor, Gretton, April 2, 1785.']; and am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To his Brother Charles Date: DUBLIN, June 19, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER,-I came hither (as I proposed when I set out) yesterday. This week I am to meet the classes. Next week we have our little Conference. The week following I hope to cross the Channel. The work of God, almost in every part of the kingdom, is in a prosperous state. Here is a set of excellent young preachers. Nine in ten of them are much devoted to God. I think, number for number, they exceed their fellow laborers in England. These in Dublin particularly are burning and shining lights. [James Rogers and Andrew Blair. See letters of Feb. 1 and June 26 (to Elizabeth Ritchie).] I am glad you have paid them one more visit at Shoreham. What the poor people will do now I know not; but the Great Shepherd knows, and will order all things well. But what becomes of Betsy Briggs [Miss Briggs stayed at Shoreham for a time, where she was very useful. She then moved to Hoxton Square, and married Peard Dickinson on April 30, 1788. See letter of Sept. 24, 1786; also letters of March 1771, and June 2, 1785.] Would not her shortest way be to marry him But I doubt he hangs back. The letter from Rome is curious enough. Fine words! And you know the Italians are famous for sincerity. I should be sorry indeed if Sammy Tooth [See letter of Sept. 27, 1778.] were a sufferer; but surely he knows his own business. Many here know and love you well. My love to all. Adieu!

It is a noble proposal of Mr. Marchington's; but I doubt it will not take place. You do not know the state of the English Methodists. They do not roll in money, like many of the American Methodists. It is with the utmost difficulty that we can raise five or six hundred pounds a year to supply our own contingent expenses. So that it is utterly impracticable to raise five hundred pounds among them to build houses in America. It is true they might do much; but it is a sad observation that they that have most money have usually least grace. The peace of God be with all your spirits! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Fletcher Date: BRISTOL, September 16, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- My DEAR SISTER, - I wanted much to hear from you, being desirous to know whether you have thought where you should settle if God should please to prolong your life. I should love to be as near you as I could; and on that account should be glad if you chose Bristol or London. I expect to be in town on Monday fortnight, October the 1st. Mr. Ireland has printed a thousand or two of your Letters, [About her husband's last illness.] with some little variations, I think for the worse! Peace be with your spirit! - I am, my dear sister, Ever yours. I am glad the people desire to join us. I shall reprint your letter when I come to London.

To Richard Locke Date: BRISTOL, September 19, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - The matter of Shepton Mallet is at an end. But I should have been glad to see you on other accounts. I wanted to know what was become of you Now you in some measure inform me. Pity but you had informed me before. Then much evil might have been either prevented or remedied. Instead of hiding everything you ought to have hid nothing from me. But tell me all or nothing. I will never bring your name into question, if you tell me who those four blessed preachers are. It is good for them that I should know them. [Wesley was with Locke at Almondsbury on Sept. 18. This letter throws light on their 'talk.' See Journal, vii, 117d.] Any service that is in my power you may expect from Your affectionate brother.

To Mary Cooke Date: BRISTOL, September 24, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - It is highly probable my letter to you was intercepted by some person of the same name, who, opened it (likely by a mistake) was afterwards ashamed to send it you. However, as you have now favored me better information, I hope there will be no such mistake the time to come. But I beg, when you write to do not write as to a stranger, but a friend. Be not afraid me because I have lived so much longer than you. I nothing upon that account, but wish to stand upon ground with you and to converse without either disguise reserve. I love you all three and not a little, especially your sisters spoke so freely to me; yet I do not say in the same degree. There is a mildness and sweetness in your spirit, such as I wish to find in one that is more to me than a common friend. Not that I impute this to nature; whatever is truly amiable is not of nature, but from a higher principle. Cultivate this, my dear friend, to the uttermost. Still learn of Him who was meek and lowly in heart. Oh, what a blessing it is to be little and mean and vile in our own eyes! You are an amiable woman, it is true; but still you are a sinner, born to die! You are an immortal spirit come forth from God and speedily returning to Him. You know well that one thing, and one only, is needful for you upon earth - to ensure a better portion, to recover the favor and image of God. The former by His grace you have recovered; you have tasted of the love of God. See that you cast it not away. See that you hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast unto the end! And how soon may you be made a partaker of sanctification! And not only by a slow and insensible growth in grace, but by the power of the Highest overshadowing you in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, so as utterly to abolish sin and to renew you in His whole image!

To Joseph Benson Date: LONDON, October 30, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH, - You have given me a clear and satisfactory account of Mr. Fletcher's behavior at Trevecca and of the reason of his leaving it; the same in effect but far more full than that which he gave me himself. I hope to glean up many more circumstances of his life from a few of his surviving friends, particularly Mr. Ireland, if he is as willing as he is able to inform me. Your caution as to the manner of writing is very proper. For no one should write or speak of him in any other spirit than he wrote and spoke. - I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Thomas Tattershall Date: LONDON, November 13, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - I heard all the complaints in Norfolk face to face, and trust that they will go on well. The affair of Derby House should be mentioned at the Conference; that is the proper time. You must immediately drop any preacher that gives any countenance to Nathaniel Ward. While I live I will bear the most public testimony I can to the reality of witchcraft. Your denial of this springs originally from the Deists; and simple Christians lick their spittle. I heartily set them at open defiance. I know of no extracts from novels; but I publish several excellent extracts from the Spectator; and I am certainly a better judge of what is fit to be published than those little critics. But let them pass over what they do not like. There never was so useful a plan devised as that of the Methodists. But what is this James Desyes says that you received 10 and a guinea towards building an house at Waterford and carried it away. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Pawson Date: LONDON, November 26, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - I thank you for the dear and circumstantial account you have given me of the manner wherein God wrought upon your soul. As He wrought the work both of justification and sanctification so distinctly you have the less temptation to cast away your confidence. But you cannot keep it unless you are zealous of good works. Be fruitful, therefore, in every good work, and God shall see very soon His whole image. - I am Yours affectionately.

To Mrs. Winscom Date: NEAR LONDON, December 10, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR MRS. WINSCOM, - When Mr. Winscom went up into the chamber with me, he told me with tears in his eyes that although he had no enmity to you, yet he did not dare to invite you to his house, because he was afraid it might be an encouragement to his other children to act as their brother had done; and who can convince him that this is a needless fear I am not able to do it. But as long as this remains I do not see how he can act otherwise than he does. I know no way you have to take but this: behave as obligingly to him as you can; never speaking against him, for whatever you say will come round to him again. Then you will gain him by little and little. - I am, dear Jenny, Yours affectionately.

4. From the moment that my mother heard my brother and me answer for ourselves she was ashamed of having paid any regard to the vile misrepresentations which had been made to her after our return from Georgia. [See letter of July 31, 1742.] She then fully approved both our principles and practice, and soon after removed to my house, and gladly attended all our ministrations till her spirit returned to God.

To Rev. Mr. Root Date: LONDON, January 2, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, - I am glad you are connected with so good a man as Dr. Stonhouse and that you do not want employment. But I am not at all of your mind that you will be useless therein, although you do not immediately see the fruit of your labor. I could send you a clergyman directly, but I won't, because he is a dead man. But I have another in my eye whom I will send to immediately to know if he is willing to accept the offer. [Peard Dickinson.] If I can get time in going to or returning from Bristol, I will call upon you at Cheverell. Peace be with your spirits! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To William Sagar Date: BRISTOL, February 25, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - I expect to be at Manchester on Wednesday, April 5; at Chester, Monday, 10th; at Liverpool, Wednesday, 12th; at Warrington, Saturday, 15th; at Preston, Monday, 17th; at Blackburn, Tuesday, 18th; Wednesday, 19th, at Padiham; Burnley, 12 [o'clock], Colne 6 [o'clock]: so as to lodge with you on Thursday, 2oth. I am to be in the evening at Keighley. I am obliged to make haste. [See letter of Feb. 22 to Mrs. Moon.] Concerning building and other matters, I hope we shall have time to talk when we meet. [ Sager was the principal means in building the chapel at Burnley. See letter of March 12, 1780.] - I am Your affectionate brother. If you know how to mend my plan, send me word Manchester.

To his Brother Charles Date: MANCHESTER, April 6, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, - I am glad you are again able to officiate at the chapels. Let us ' anage wisely the last stake.' [See letter of June 27, 1755.] For some years John Davis was a mere mule; he would neither lead nor drive. But it is enough that he finished his course well; and we are sure Nancy Sharland did so. [See letter of Nov. 15, 1780.] Sammy Bradburn thought of going further with me. But the frost and snow drove him back. I believe the loss of his wife will be one of the greatest blessings which he has ever met with in his life. [On March 13 he had taken Bradburn to travel with him. On the 2ist at Gloucester he proposed marriage to Sophia Cooke (who suggested to Raikes his Sunday-School efforts), and they were married on Aug. 10. See letters of Feb. 14 and June 20.] Mrs. Fletcher will not be in haste to remove from Madeley, though her light is there almost hid under a bushel. Mr. Ireland will give me no help with regard to writing Mr. Fletcher's Life, 'because he intends to publish it himself!' [He was at Madeley on March 26. See letters of Oct. 2 and Dec. 31, 1785.] Let him do it, and I will follow him. Where is your elegy [See letter of Dec. 9 to Mrs. Fletcher.] You may say as my father in his verses on Mr. Nelson [Robert Nelson, the Nonjuror, who did much to promote schools and parochial libraries. See letter of June 13, 1733, n.] Let friendship's sacred name excuse The last effort of an expiring muse. Can you or I ever have such another subject Melville Horne hopes to be ordained on Trinity Sunday. Indeed, I love the Church as sincerely as ever I did; and I tell our Societies everywhere, 'The Methodists will not leave the Church, at least while I live.' I doubt I shall not half agree with our friends in Scotland; but I shall know more and you will hear more when I see them.

While I live Dr. Coke and I shall go through Ireland by turns. He will have work enough this year with gentle Edward Smyth. [Smyth opened Bethesda Chapel, Dublin, on June 25.] I doubt Edward 'needs a bridle'; but who can put the bit into his mouth I am not sorry your concerts are come to an end. [The concerts given by his sons in their father's house; Wesley attended one on Jan. 25, 1781. Samuel had become a Roman Catholic; his father's dream probably had been on this subject, and the text points to Wesley's hope of a coming restoration. See Journal, vi. 303; and letters of Aug. 19, 1784, and March 18, 1788, to his nephew.] Remember 'your dream concerning Sammy! 'The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth!' Mr. Pennant's I know, and Dr. Johnson's I know; but I know nothing of Mr. Boswell's Tour to the Hebrides. [Boswell's Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides was published in 1786.] I should imagine it was worth reading. Peace be with all your spirits! Adieu!

It is a bad dog that is not worth whistling for. In the times I have been at Bedford, Mr. Barham [Charles Wesley mentions Mr. Barham in a letter to his son Charles from Bristol in 1782. See his Journal, ii. 273.] never owned me, much less invited me to his house. I do not know him if I meet him. Perhaps he loves me - at a distance. Peace be with you and yours! Pray tell Brother Horton and Kemp [Richard Kemp, one of the original trustees of City Road Chapel, had a large business as a framework-knitter in Whitecross Street. He died on Sept. 4, 1787, aged sixty-six. See Stevenson's City Road Chapel, p. 530.] I have had two letters from Mrs. Holmes (Mr. Holmes's widow) informing me that John Price has been for some time quite sober and very diligent in attending the school. In consequence of which she pleads hard for payment of his salary. My route is: Monday, 8, Thirsk; Wednesday, 10, Barnard Castle; Saturday, 13, and Wednesday, 17, Edinburgh; and Wednesday, 31, Tuesday, 23, Aberdeen. Adieu.

To Jasper Winscom Date: EPWORTH, June 17, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JASPER, - I am afraid your attorney at the Assizes was greatly wanting either in skill or honesty. Otherwise why did he not move the court for costs of suit. These ought to be borne by those that are cast in any trial. As to commencing another prosecution, I know not what to say. I can neither advise one way nor the other. [See letters of May 9, 1785, and Sept. 30, 1788.] --I am Your affectionate brother.

To Sarah M'Kim Date: BRISTOI., July 21, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - You do well to write. I am well pleased to hear you do not let go the blessing which God has given you. See that you hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast unto the end. And you know there are still greater blessings behind I There is no end of His goodness. If any of our brethren in Sligo ['I presume it was to Sarah M'Kim, of Sligo' (C. H. Crookshank).] will give you a guinea, he may receive it again of Mr. Rogers in Dublin. - I am, dear Sally, Yours affectionately.

To Walter Churchey Date: BRISTOL, September 20, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - At length Jenny has broke through, and given me the satisfaction of exchanging a few words with her. You send us strange news that the lions of Wales are become lambs! I really think a spirit of humanity and benevolence is gone forth upon the earth, perhaps intimating that the time is drawing near when men shall not know war any more. Mr. Wrigley has been detained here by a sore face ever since the Conference; but is now also on the mending hand, though he is not yet able to go abroad. [Francis Wrigley, Assistant at Redruth.] I am glad to hear that Dr. Powell, of Brecon, continues in the good way. He seems to be of a frank, open temper, and to be skilful in his profession. I am rather gaining than losing ground as to my health. I think Mr. Cowper has done as much as is possible to be done with his lamentable story. I can only wish he had a better subject. [The Task was published in June 1785. See letter of July 22, 1788, to Churchey.] Peace be with you and yours! - I am Your affectionate brother. I set out for London on Monday.

To the Rev. Mr. L. --- Date: LONDON, October 25, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- Last night I had a long conversation with a few sensible men concerning going to church. [The conversation was evidently at Deptford. See Journal, vii. 217.] I asked them what objection they had to the hearing of Mr. L---. They answered, 'They could not hear him. He generally spoke so low that they lost a good part of what he said; and that what they could was spoken in a dead, cold, languid manner, as if he did not feel anything which he spoke.' This would naturally disgust them the more, because Dr. C[oke] leaned to the other extreme. I doubt there is some ground for their objection. But I should think you might easily remove it. I asked again, Have you any objection to anything in his behavior 'They answered, 'One thing we cannot approve of - his being ashamed of the Methodists. His never recommending or defending them at all, we think, is a full proof of this; for everyone knows his near relation and his many obligations to you. They know how you have loved and cherished him from a child.' They might have added, 'You owe your whole education to him; and therefore, in effect, your ordination, your curacy, your school, yea, and your wife: none of which you would in all likelihood have had had it not been for him.' I would add a word upon this head myself. I do not think you act wisely. Not one of your genteel friends can be depended on: they are mere summer flies. Whereas, had you condescended to make the Methodists your friends, they would have clave to you, one and all. And they are already no inconsiderable body of people; besides that they are increasing more and more.

Suffer me now to speak a word between you and me. Is not the reason of your preaching so languidly and coldly, that you do not feel what you say And why not Because your soul is not alive to God! Do you know that your sins are forgiven I fear not. Can you say, 'I know that my Redeemer liveth' I doubt, if you did know it once, whether you know it now Have you fellowship with the Father and the Son Alas! 'tis well if you know what it means! And are you content to have your portion in this world Do you favor only earthly things Then I do not wonder that you are shy to the Methodists; for they are not to your taste! O think and pray to-day! For I do not promise you that you shall live another year! I now give you a full proof that I am Your truly affectionate.

To John Valton Date: LONDON, October 29, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - Striking a woman in the street, and crying amain, Strumpet, strumpet! was enough to enrage a woman, even to madness. It had not been strange if, instead of scolding, she had shot her husband or herself. I wonder she can sustain life. Do not cast water upon a drowning man; and take care of receiving anything upon Joseph Brundrell's testimony. Speaking is not the thing, but revealing what is spoken in band, had it been true. Unless Sister Pitt [See letter of Oct. 9 to Valton.] be convinced of this sin, I will expel her the Society the first time I come to Bath. I must do justice if the sky falls. I am the last resort. A word to the wise! I am sure Michael Griffith [See letter of Dec. 22.] is good enough for the place, if he is not too good. I hope Mr. Jones is set out for Brecon. [Thomas Jones had been appointed there.] See that Michael have fair play. John Atlay knows nothing about the hundred pounds; neither do I. I am afraid it is a castle in the air, I am glad to hear you have so fair a prospect in the circuit. You will find all things work together for good. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Thomas Wride Date: LONDON, October 29, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - I am entirely of your mind. If any man (to waive everything else) can make me sleep without touching me, he may call the matter what he pleases; I know it is not magnetism, but magic. Mr. Mears did not tell me (that I know) anything about letters one, two, three. Women told me at Chatham. 'We called on Mrs. Wride and offered her any service in our power; but she was so sullen and surly, we had not the heart to go again.' But is it true, Tommy, that you have an estate left you I fear it is not so large as the Duke of Bedford's! I should be glad to bring you all to a good agreement. If I knew how. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Samuel Bradburn Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- December, 1786. DEAR SAMMY, - You know I love you. Ever since I knew you I have neglected no way of showing it that was in my power. And you know how I esteem you for .your zeal and activity, for your love of discipline, and for your gifts which God has given you - particularly quickness of apprehension, and readiness of utterance, especially in prayer. Therefore I am jealous over you, lest you should lose any of the things you have gained, and not receive a full reward; and the more so because I fear you are wanting in other respects. And who will venture to tell you so You will scarce know how to bear it from me unless you lift up your heart to God. If you do this, I may venture to tell you what I fear without any further preface. I fear you think of yourself more highly than you ought to think. Do not you think too highly of your own understanding of your gifts, particularly in preaching, as if you were the very best preacher in the Connection of your own importance, as if the work of God here or there depended wholly or mainly on you and of your popularity, which I have found, to my surprise, far less, even in London, than I expected May not this be much owing to the want of brotherly love With what measure you mete, men will measure to you again. I fear there is something unloving in your spirit - something not only of roughness, but of harshness, yea of sourness! Are you not also extremely open to prejudice, and not easy to be cured of it so that whenever you are prejudiced you commence bitter, implacable, unmerciful If so, that people are prejudiced against you is both the natural and the judicial consequence. I am afraid lest your want of love to your neighbors should spring from want of love to God, from want of thankfulness. I have sometimes heard you speak in a manner that made me tremble; indeed, in terms that not only a weak Christian but even a serious Deist would scruple to use.

To Mrs. Fletcher Date: LONDON, December 9, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - The book is now finished; I have the last proof now before me. Two of the three accounts you give I have at large. I only wait a few days, to see if my brother will write his Elegy. [See letter of April 6. Charles did not write anything.] I am clearly satisfied that you will do well to spend a considerable part of your time at Madeley. But I can by no means advise you to spend all your time there. I think you are a debtor to several other places also, particularly to London and Yorkshire. Nay, and if we live I should rejoice if you and I can contrive to be in those places at the same time; for I feel a great union of spirit with you. I cannot easily tell you how much. I am, my very dear sister, Yours invariably.

To Thomas Hall Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- LONDON, Dec,mber 22, 1785. This is to certify whom it may concern that I give my full and free consent to the sale of our old preaching-house in Bury, Lancashire. Witness my hand, Mr. Thomas Hall, junr., Bury, Lancashire. Pray deliver this with speed.

To Adam Clarke Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1787) Author: John Wesley --- MANCHESTER, Saturday, July 28, 1787. DEAR ADAM,--On Monday fortnight, if God permit, Dr. Coke, Mr. Brackenbury, and I shall set out for Southampton in order to embark for Jersey, on board the first packet. I do not know but we shall bring your friend John King [King did not go with them, but to Thirsk. See letters of April 21 and Oct. 31, 1787, to him.] with us. -- I am, dear Adam, Yours affectionately.

To Mrs. Tighe Date: BRISTOL, October 2, 1787. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1787) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR MADAM, -- I have no doubt at all of the uprightness of Mr. Tozer and his wife: but I have more acquaintance with Mr. Harper. He is a truly good man, and has a considerable share of knowledge; so that if he was willing to take the charge of this little school. [Was this John Harper who had been a preacher Mrs. Tighe lived at Rosanna, near Wicklow. See letter of Feb. 7, 1789, to her.] I know of no one that is more likely to promote the design of it. -- I am, dear madam, Your very affectionate servant. Next week I expect to be in London.

To Adam Clarke Date: LONDON, January 8, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ADAM, -- I admired the spirit of young George Walker. [Despite somewhat hard treatment by his father. See letter of Dec. 18, 1787.] All the times that he spent with us I know not that he blamed any one. He did not tell anything about his father but in simply answering the questions I asked concerning him. I am in great hopes now that his marriage will not do hurt either to him or her. It is exceeding well that the storm which threatened is so well blown over. It is plain the Lord God omnipotent reigneth and that there is neither counsel nor strength against Him. But you have not sent a plain, full, distinct account of the affair of our old sister, [Mrs. Home, See letters of Nov. 9, 1787, and March 17, 1788.] specifying (1) her age; (2) on what day of the year and month did the first hair shoot out (3) on what day did she throw it into the fire (4) on what night did it grow again (5) who were eyewitnesses of these things You cannot be too particular. I do not like your staying so long at a time in Guernsey. I advise you to change islands without fail once a quarter. Are Mr. and Mrs. De Jersey well, and my two dear maidens How are Mr. and Mrs. Amore And how does my dear Jenny Bisson go on She is a letter in my debt. I wish you all many happy years; and am, dear Adam, Yours and Brother De Queteville's affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Barton Date: LONDON, January 11, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- You have indeed had a series of trials one upon the back of another. It is well you know in whom you have believed; otherwise you would have been weary and faint in your mind. For it is not an easy thing always to remember (then especially when we have most need of it) that 'the Lord loveth whom He chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.' Who could believe it, if He had not told us so Himself It is well that He never fails to give us strength according to our day; and that we know these 'light afflictions, which are but for a moment, work for us a more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.' -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To his Niece Sarah Wesley Date: BRISTOL, March 7, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SALLY, -- When my appetite was entirely gone, so that all I could take at dinner was a roasted turnip, it was restored in a few days by riding out daily, after taking ten drops of elixir of vitriol in a glass of water. It is highly probable this would have the same effect in my brother's case. But in the meantime I wish he would see Dr. Whitehead. [John Whitehead. See letter of Oct. 15, 1766.] I am persuaded there is not such another physician in England; although (to confound human wisdom) he does not know how to cure his own wife. He must lie in bed as little as possible in the daytime; otherwise it will hinder his sleeping at night. Now, Sally, tell your brothers from me [See letter of March 5.] that their tenderly respectful behavior to their father (even asking his pardon if in anything they have offended him) will be the best cordial for him under heaven. I know not but they may save his life thereby. To know nothing will be wanting on your part gives great satisfaction to, my dear Sally, Yours very affectionately.

To Sarah Mallet Date: BATH, March 11, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- I should have been exceedingly glad to see you; for I have a tender affection for you, and I shall always be well pleased to hear from you and to know how your soul prospers. I do not wonder you should have trials: you may expect them from every quarter. You tread daily on dangers, snares, and death. But they cannot hurt you whilst your heart cleaves to God. Beware of pride! Beware of flatterers! Beware of dejections! But above all beware of inordinate affection! Those who profit by you will be apt to love you more than enough; and will not this naturally lead you into the same temptation Nay, Sally, is not this the case already Is your heart filled wholly with God Is it clear of idols I think you can speak to me freely, though on so delicate a subject you can hardly speak to anyone else. Is He still the sole object of your desire, the treasure and joy of your heart Considering your age and sex and situation, what but Omnipotence can keep you in the midst of the fire You will not take it amiss if I ask you another question. I know that neither your father nor uncle is rich; and in traveling up and down you will want a little money. Are you not sometimes straitened Only let me know, and you shall want nothing that is in the power of, my dear Sally, Yours affectionately.

To his Niece Sarah Wesley Date: MANCHESTER, April 12, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SALLY, -- I thank you for the account you have given me. It is full and satisfactory. You describe a very awful scene. The time, I doubt not, was prolonged on purpose that it might make the deeper impression on those that otherwise might soon have forgotten it. What a difference does one moment make! When the soul springs out of time into eternity, what an amazing change! What are all the pleasures, the business of this world, to a disembodied spirit! Let us, therefore, be ready. For the day is at hand! But the comfort is it cannot part you long from, my dear Sally, Yours invariably.

To Peard Dickinson Date: CHESTER, April 15, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- My brother never knew the value of Dr. Coke while he lived. [Charles Wesley was afraid that Dr. Coke was leading his brother to take steps which involved separation from the Church of England.] I wish I had an hundred preachers like him. If you expected me to die within the year, you should not have printed so large editions. For you know not who will buy them when I am gone. [A new edition of the four volumes of Wesley's Sermons was published on Jan. 1, 1788, and four other volumes of sermons were in preparation. See Green's Bibliography, No. 397.] While we live let us live in earnest. I have little fear for Sally, much hope for Charles (to whom I wrote lately), and some for Sammy. He certainly fears God. I will have the Tunes s printed as soon as may be. If the corrected copy is lost, they must be printed from the large copy; but the price must be only two shillings and sixpence. Pray consult with T. Olivers where the additional sermons may be most properly inserted. [Tunes left by Mr. Rhodes. See letter of March 13.] I have another ready for the press and two more begun. -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Charles Wesley Date: BLACKBURN, April 21, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- You will excuse me, my dear sister, for troubling you with so many letters, for I know not how to help it. I had you and your family so much upon my heart, both for your own sake and for the sake of my brother. But I am much easier now that I find you are joined with honest John Collinson, whom I know to be not only a man of probity, but likewise a man of diligence and understanding. I am therefore persuaded he will spare no pains in doing what you wish to be done. So that I shall [not] be wanted you, as he will fully supply my lack of service. [On his return to London Wesley had breakfast with Charles Wesley's family. See letter of July 6, 1788; and for Collinson, that of May 20, 1769.] I only both Charles and Sammy may follow your example and advice [See letter of April 12 to her.] in keeping little company, and those of the best sort, men sound understanding and solid piety; for such only are for the acquaintance of men of sense. I commit you all to Him that loves you, and am, my dear Sister, Ever yours.

To William Simpson Date: NEAR COLNE, April 26, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BILLY, -- You did well to expel those who marry ungodly persons, -- a real evil which we can never tolerate. You should speak to every believer singly concerning meeting in band. There were always some in Yarm Circuit, though not many. No circuit ever did or ever will flourish unless there are bands in the large Societies. It is a good sign that so many of our preachers are willing to contribute to those necessary expenses. They used to be much straitened in their bowels whenever money was wanted. You have now good encouragement to remain another year in the circuit. But you know two preachers do not remain in the same circuit more than one year. -- I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Fletcher Date: LONDON, June 9, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- I am sincerely glad that you have found an opportunity of transmitting those valuable papers to Mr. Benson. I know no one in England who is more capable of preparing them for the public view, [See letters of March 10, 1787, and Sept. 17, 1788.] as there is scarcely any one who better understands the whole subject of debate. And now I am in hopes both the points will be carried. On the one hand, Mr. Ireland will be satisfied (who seems to have, though I cannot tell why, an insuperable prejudice to me); and on the other, justice will be done to the memory of blessed Mr. Fletcher. If I live a month or two longer, I shall see you and your relation, of whom I rejoice to hear so good an account. [Wesley met 'young Mr. Fletcher, much alive to God, and Swiftly growing up into the spirit of his uncle,' on March 23, 1789. See Journal, vii. 480.] Who knows what good things God had in store for him, and for what purposes He has brought him to England Committing you to His care who has kept you from your youth up, I am, my dear sister, Most affectionately yours.

To Peard Dickinson Date: THIRSK, June 24, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I do not know any little piece of news which has given me more satisfaction than this, that my Sister Hall has taken a lodging in Th. Philip's house. I hope to see her and you in about a fortnight, that I may have time to prepare for the Conference. [Held at London on July 29.] You do well not to indulge your thirst after books, but to confine yourself to a very few. I know no commentator on the Bible equal to Bengal. His Gnomon is a jewel; so is his Ordo Temp [His Gnomon 'as a brief and suggestive commentary on the New Testament remains unrivalled.' McClintock and Strong's Cyclopodia. Ordo temporum a principio per periodos conomio, divino, 1753.]: the finest system of chronology that ever appeared in the world. Now consider with yourself and [set] down whatever relates to the Conference. Peace be with both your spirits I -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Charles Wesley Date: CITY ROAD, July 25, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- You know well what a regard I had for Miss Gwynne before she was Mrs. Wesley; and it has not ceased from that time till now. I am persuaded it never will. I find you and your family much upon my heart, both for your own sakes and the sake of my brother. Therefore I will speak without reserve just what comes into my mind. I have sometimes thought you are a little like me. My wife used to tell me, 'My dear, you are too generous. You don't know the value of money.' I could not wholly deny the charge. Possibly you may sometimes lean to the same extreme. I know, you are of a generous spirit. You have an open heart and an open hand. But may it not sometimes be too open, more so than your circumstances will allow. Is it not an instance of Christian (as well as worldly) prudence, 'To cut our coat according to our cloth' If your circumstances are a little narrower, should you not contract your expenses too I need but just give you this hint, which I doubt not you will take kindly from, my dear Sally, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Sarah Mallet Date: LONDON, August 2, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- Let me know any time what books you wish to have, and I will order them to be sent to you. [See letters of March 11 and Dec. 26.] It is a pleasure to me if I can show in anything the regard which I have for you, as I am firmly persuaded that you have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward man. I do not doubt but you have given God your heart, and do in all things wish to do His holy and acceptable will. But if so, it is no wonder that you should meet with crosses, both from the devil and his children, especially as you believe you are called of God to bear a public testimony against him. But you are in far greater danger from applause than from censure; and it is well for you that one balances the other. But I trust you will never be weary of well doing. In due time you shall reap if you faint not. Whoever praises or dispraises, it is your part to go steadily on, speaking the truth in love. I do not require any of our preachers to license either themselves or the places where they preach. [For the Act, see Tyerman'a Wesley, iii. 512.] Indeed, a forward young man in Northamptonshire brought some trouble on himself by preaching in church time, and so near the church as to disturb both the minister and the congregation. But that need not fright any other of our preachers. They are just as safe as they were before. Go on, therefore, and fear nothing but sin. And let me know if there be anything wherein I can assist you, which will be a pleasure to, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To our Societies in England and Ireland [7] LONDON, August 2, 1788.

To Walter Churchey Date: LONDON, August 8, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTER, -- I think you know that I love you and that I should rejoice to do anything for you that is in my power. And one allowed proof of love is plain dealing. Therefore I will speak to you without any reserve. There are many good lines, and some very good, both in the ode and in the translation of The Art of Painting. And I really think you improve in versifying: you write a good deal better than you did some years ago. You express your sense with more perspicuity than you used to do, and appear to have greater variety of words as well as more strength. But there is nothing (to use the modern cant word) sentimental in either the ode or the translation. There is nothing of tender or pathetic, nothing that touches the passions. Therefore no bookseller would venture to buy them, as knowing they will not sell. And they lie utterly out of the way of the Methodists, who do not care to buy or even to read (at least the generality of them) any but religious books. I do not believe all my influence would induce them to buy as many copies as would suffice to pay for the printing. I have not yet seen my brother's translation of the Psalms. Neither, indeed, could I as yet have time to read it, were it put into my hands. If any had asked my advice, they would not have thrust out the account of George Lukins [Lukins had been exorcised in the Vestry of Temple Church, Bristol. See Journal, vii. 362.] into the world so prematurely. It should have been fully authenticated first. I am, with love to Sister Churchey, Your affectionate brother. I expect to be at Brecon on Sunday se'nnight.

To Arthur Keene Date: LONDON, August 8, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR ARTHUR, -- Even at this busy time I must snatch a few minutes to write. You have now an easy way to show your affection for me and your willingness to be advised by me. It is the belief of many that you will see me in Ireland no more. But if I should live till spring, I shall endeavor to visit Dublin at the usual time, about the end of March. [He arrived in Dublin for his last visit on March 29, 1789.] If then you have a real regard for me, see that your preaching-house [In Whitefriar Street. See letter of June 16.] be enlarged without delay. Forward the building that it may be ready when I come. Do this, and I shall know that you have a love for, my dear Arthur, Your ever affectionate brother. My kind love attend Bella and all the little ones.

To Lady Maxwell Date: LONDON, August 8, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR LADY, -- It is certain many persons both in Scotland and England would be well pleased to have the same preachers always. But we cannot forsake the plan of acting which we have followed from the beginning. For fifty years God has been pleased to bless the itinerant plan, the last year most of all. It must not be altered till I am removed; and I hope will remain till our Lord comes to reign upon earth. I do not know (unless it unfits us for the duties of life) that we can have too great a sensibility of human pain. Me-thinks I should be afraid of losing any degree of this sensibility. I had a son-in-law (now in Abraham's bosom) who quitted his profession, that of a surgeon, for that very reason; because he said it made him less sensible of human pain. [Was this Noah Vazeille] And I have known exceeding few persons who have carried this tenderness of spirit to excess. I recollect but one who was constrained to leave off in a great measure visiting the sick because he could not see any one in pain without fainting away. Mr. Charles Perronet was the first person I was acquainted with who was favored with the same experience as the Marquis De Renty ['I bear in me ordinarily an experimental verity and a plenitude of the most Holy Trinity, which exalts me to a simple view of God.' (Wesley's Extract of the Life of Monsieur De Renty). See letter of Oct. 3, 1731.] with regard to the ever-blessed Trinity, Miss Ritchie was the second, Miss Roe (now Mrs. Rogers) the third. I have as yet found but a few instances; so that this is not, as I was at first apt to suppose, the common privilege of all that are 'perfect in love.' [Compare letters of June 11 1777 (to Hannah Ball), and July 4, 2787, and Lady Maxwell's letters to Alexander Mather in her Life, pp. 359-61.]

Pardon me, my dear friend, for my heart is tenderly concerned for you, if I mention one fear I have concerning you, lest, on conversing with some, you should be in any degree warped from Christian simplicity. O do not wish to hide that you are a Methodist! Surely it is best to appear just what you are. I believe you will receive this as a proof of the sincerity with which I am, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant.

To Elizabeth Baker Date: CARMARTHEN, August 26, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BETSY, -- Since I had the pleasure of seeing you I have been thinking much on what you said concerning your loving others too much. In one sense this cannot be; you cannot have too much benevolence for the whole human race: but in another sense you may; you may grieve too much for the distresses of others, even so much as to make you incapable of giving them the relief which otherwise you should give them. So I know one that, when he sees any one in strong pain, directly faints away. [See letter of Aug. 8 to Lady Maxwell.] It is something like this which you mean by feeling too much for others You can give me two or three instances of it, and then I shall be better able to judge. Have you a constant witness of the pardoning love of God And do you find an abiding love to Him Have you yet been enabled to give Him your whole heart If so, at what time and in what manner did you receive this blessing I think you can speak with all freedom to Yours very affectionately.

To his Niece Sarah Wesley Date: BRISTOL, September 8, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SALLY, -- You shall have just as many friends as will be for your good; and why should not my Betty Ritchie be in the number I must look to that, if I live to see London again, which will probably be in three weeks. If sea water has that effect on you, it is plain you are not to drink it. [See letters of Sept. 1, 1788, and Sept. 17, 1790.] All the body is full of imbibing pores. You take in water enough that way. If your appetite increases, so does your strength, although by insensible degrees. I have seen John Henderson several times. I hope he does not live in any sin. But it is a great disadvantage that he has nothing to do. I hope we shall find him something. I have a work in hand that will give you pleasure: I have begun to write my brother's Life. [This work he never accomplished. He died before he had made much progress in collecting material. See Jackson's Charles Wesley, ii. 454; and letter of Sept. 26.] Now, in this you may assist me much. You knew as much of him as most people; and you have the pen of a ready witness. Set down everything you can recollect concerning him. I think between us we shall be able to make something out. You may set down everything you can think of; I can select such a portion as is most proper. You have now leisure for it and for doing good to any whom Providence delivers into your hands. Peace be with your spirit! -- I am, my dear Sally, Yours in tender affection.

To Mrs. Charles Wesley Date: BRISTOL, September 22, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SISTER, -- As John Atlay has deserted me and George Whitfield is but just come into his place, I do not yet know anything of my own circumstances. But I hope to be in town on Monday; and, either for the sake of you or my dear Sally, I shall certainly do anything that is in the power of, dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Walter Churchey Date: BRISTOL, September 27, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- To-morrow evening I am to set out for London. So I still creep up and down, as I would fain do a little work before the night cometh wherein no man can work. I commend you much for not suffering your daughter to go you know not where. What would it profit her to gain a thousand pounds and then lose her soul which could scarce fail to be the consequence of placing her in an ungodly family. I do not know anything in Bristol that would suit; but very probably I may find something in London. I should be glad if I could have a conversation with Mr. Cowper. I verily think there would be no great difference between us. [See letters of July 22 and Dec. 6 to Churchey.] September 27, LONDON. I think it is a pity to burn the poems. There are many good lines in them. [See letter of Aug. 8 to him.] So there are in the Dedication, which I thought I had sent you with the rest. I will send two of the Prayer-Books by the first opportunity. Peace be with you and yours.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Walter Griffith () Date: LONDON, October 10, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It is certain you cannot preach the truth without offending those who preach the contrary. Nevertheless, you must preach it, only in the mildest and [most] inoffensive manner the thing will admit of. And beware that you never return evil for evil or railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing. You cannot constrain any one to go to church; you can only advise them to it, and encourage them by your example. My kind love to your wife. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To John Valton Date: LONDON, October 31, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Whoever they were written by the rules are excellent rules; and I should have no objection to your printing them in the manner you mention. One thing is certain, that it would be some advantage to the poor printer; and it is probable that the rules would be useful to a serious reader. I think if you used decoction of nettles every morning (if you have not done it already) it might restore your strength. --I am, with love to Sister Valton, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Jasper Winscom Date: LONDON, November 8, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JASPER, -- William Cashman [Probably William Ashman, who was now at Tiverton. See letter of Oct. 23, 1786.] advised you like an heathen. Mr. Valton deserves pay as well as you do. [Valton was now a supernumerary at Bristol, and was able to accept invitations to preach in other circuits. See Wesley's Veterans, vi. 104.] But he does not want it, and therefore scorns to take it, knowing the poverty of the land. I am glad to hear so good an account of the isle. The work of God will flourish there if it be steadily pursued. No preacher ought to stay either at Portsmouth, or Sarum, or any other place a whole week together. That is not the Methodist plan at all. It is a novel abuse. I hope you have finished the matter with the attorney [See letter of Sept. 30.]; and am, dear Jasper, Your affectionate brother.

To Sarah Mallet Date: LONDON, December 26, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- I answered your letter long ago, and desired Mr. Whitfield to send my letter with the Magazines which he was sending to Norwich, desiring withal that the next preacher who went to Long Stratton would give it you. But for the time to come whenever I write I will send the letter by post, and I can easily make up the expense. [He had given it to his Book Steward to be forwarded, so that Miss Mallet might not be put to expense, as she was poor. See letters of Aug. 2, 1788, and Feb. 21, 1789, to her.] I am well pleased to find that you have regard for me; so have I for you. And it is therefore a pleasure to me to serve you in anything that is within my power. Indeed, I could not so well send the Notes on the Old Testament, as the edition is nearly sold off, and we have very few of them left, which are reserved to make up full sets. But any other books are at your service. I want to forward you in all useful knowledge, which indeed lies in a very narrow compass. You do not expect to go through life without crosses; and some will fall upon you on my account; for my taking notice of you may bring envy upon you. But in your patience possess your soul. Please God, and it is enough. Go steadily and quietly on in the way wherein Providence leads you, and in every temptation He by His Spirit will clear a way for you to escape. If any particular difficulty or trim comes upon you, do not fail to let me know. None can be more ready to assist you than, my dear Sally, Yours affectionately.

To Joseph Taylor Date: LONDON, February 13, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH, -- I have a business of some importance for you to transact. Pray go to my old friend Matthew Bagshaw, and in my name desire of him, (1) to tell you how far John Wilson has wronged him: (2) to introduce you to Mr. Henshaw, of whom you are to inquire (and write me word directly) what he heard between John Wilson and him: desire him also (3) to let you know whether he has wronged any one beside in Nottingham: if he has, in what manner If you can come clearly to the bottom of his affair, it is possible I may be of some real service to him. But till then it is not possible. For God will surely fight against him while he continues to cover his sin.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To John Stretton Date: LONDON, February 27, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Thirty years ago we had thirty or forty preachers, the greater part of whom were truly devoted to God; but one or two of them departed from us, loving the present world. At present we have in Great Britain and Ireland about two hundred traveling preachers, and probably there are three or four of these whose hearts are not right with God; but we do not know it; we have no proof of this, or we should put them away. I do not know that Henry Brians has any gifts for preaching or any desire of it. Samuel Woods I do not remember at all. But in a few days I shall probably set out for Ireland. What becomes of James Wray [See letter of June 30, 1788, to John Mann.] Is he dead or alive I know not that I have had a letter from him for above this twelve months. What concerns me is that I cannot find any union between you northern preachers. John Hoskins, John McGeary, and John Stretton I should imagine would have all acted in concert; on the contrary, each seems to be afraid of the other. How is this What is the true ground of this shyness What objections have you to John Hoskins or John McGeary What objections have they to you 'Tis a pity but you had all spoken freely to Your affectionate brother.

To Susanna Knapp Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- [BATH, March 3, 1789.] MY DEAR SUKY, -- I am glad to find you still desiring and seeking the best portion. To-morrow fortnight I hope to see you at Worcester. It gives me pleasure to hear that Mrs. Knapp's health is in some measure restored. We are sure health we shah have if health is the best for us. Yours affectionately.

To Zachariah Yewdull Date: DUBLIN, June 20, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ZACHARY, -- You have chose an admirably good advocate in honest Alexander Mather. I shall blame you if you cannot plead your own cause when you have him at your elbows, especially when you know you have another friend standing behind the curtain. For with regard to circuits to be assigned, or any other assistance you may be assured of anything that is in the power of Your affectionate brother.

To William Thom Date: PLYMOUTH DOCK, August 30, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- The case of Mr. Holmes of all others ought to have been fully discussed at the Conference. It has been mentioned, I know, once and again, but not clearly determined. Several of our brethren did not think it proper to burden ourselves with an old man and his family. Surely it is not proper for me single to overrule their judgment. I do not see what I can do. I would be willing to serve him any way I can; but I do not see what way it can be done. -- I am, with kind love to Sister Thom, Your affectionate friend and brother.

4. But may it not be asked 'whether this is not a change for the better, seeing hops are so exceeding wholesome a plant' Are they so Why, then, do physicians almost with one voice forbid their patients the use of malt drink, particularly all that are infected with the scurvy or any distemper related to it Do not they know there is not a more powerful anti-scorbutic in the world than wort -- that is, unhopped decoction of malt What a demonstration is this that it is the addition of hops which turns this excellent medicine into poison! And who does not know that wort, unhopped malt drink, is an excellent medicine both for the gout and stone But will any physician in his senses recommend the common malt drink to one that is ill of or subject to those diseases Why not Because there is no drink that more directly tends to breed and increase both one and the other.

To Mrs. Warwick Date: BATH, September 10, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- I know not what to do or what to say. This untoward man so perplexes me It is not my business to find houses for the preachers' wives. I do not take it upon me. I did not order him to come to Burslem. I only permitted what I could not help. I must leave our brethren to compromise these matters among themselves. They are too hard for me. A preacher is wanted in Gloucester circuit. One of them may go thither. -- I am, with love to Brother Warwick, [Someone has written across the letter, To Mrs. Warwick concerning Michael Moorhouse. See letter of July 7, 1786.] my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Thomas Stedman Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- December 1789. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- I will desire a friend to look over my letters in a day or two, and see if any [are] from Dr. Doddridge. I know one or two of these are printed in my Journal, the originals of which are burnt. Possibly two or three more may remain. If they are to be found, you [they] shall be at your service. How one generation goes and another comes I My grandmother Annesley lived forty years with her husband, who never was seen to smile after her death, though he lived six or seven years. [See letter of Aug. 13, 1774.] -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant.

To Thomas Tattershall Date: NEAR LONDON, January 6, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, -- Because you desire some word I write, although I have no tidings ready. I know of no preacher that is now ready to go out; and you know we can neither buy nor hire preachers. Yet I am not sorry that your small friend [William Green, his colleague. See letter of Oct. 25, 1789, to him.] has taken himself away; for he was really a dangerous man. His bitter enmity against the Church made him utterly unfit to be a Methodist preacher; and his elaborate Discourse against Going to Church was enough to confound any one that was not used to controversy. Yet I did not dare to put him away; but I am not at all sorry that he is gone away. I shall not be forward to take him again; but in any other way I would be glad to help him. I would not scruple giving him a few pounds if it would do him any good. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Whom it may Concern Date: LONDON, February 25, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- In August 1788 Mr. Atlay wrote me word, 'I must look out for another servant, for he would go to Dewsbury on September 25.' So far was I from 'bidding him go,' that I knew nothing of it till that hour. But I then told him, 'Go and serve them'; seeing I found he would serve me no longer. He sent me word that I had in London 13,751 18s. 5d. stock in books. [See letter of Sept. 4, 1788.] Desiring to know exactly, I employed two booksellers to take an account of my stock. The account they brought in, October 31, 1788, was: Value of stock, errors excepted, 4,827 10s. 5d. John Parsons, Thomas Scollick. Why did John Atlay so wonderfully overrate my stock Certainly to do me honor in the eyes of the world. I never approved of his going to Dewsbury; but I submitted to what I could not help. With respect to Dewsbury House, there never was any dispute about the property of preaching-houses (that was an artful misrepresentation), but merely the appointing of preachers in them. If John Atlay has a mind to throw any more dirt upon me, I do not know I shall take any pains to wipe it off. [See letter of May 12.] I have but a few days to live; and I wish to spend those in peace.

To Preachers and Friends Date: LONDON, March 1, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- As many persons desire to know where I am from this time till the Conference, I here set down my route, which, if God permit, I shall keep till that time. March. Monday, 15, Stroud; 16, Gloucester; 17, Worcester; 18. Stourport; 19, Birmingham. Monday, 22, Wednesbury; 23, Dudley and Wolverhampton; 24, Madeley; 25, Salop; 26, Madcloy; 27, Newcastle-under-Lyne; 28, Lane End and Burslem. Monday, 29, Congleton; 30, Macclesfield. April. Thursday, 1, Stockport; 2, Manchester. Monday, 5, Nantwich and Liverpool; 7, Warrington and Chester; 9, Wigan; 10, Bolton. Monday, 12, Blackburn; 13, Colne; 17, Keighley; 18, Haworth and Halifax. Tuesday, 20, Huddersfield; 2x, Dewsbury; 24, Wakefield; 25, Bitstall and Leeds. Tuesday, 27, Bradford; 29, Otley. May. Saturday, 1, Parkgate; 2, York; 4, Pocklington; 6, Newcastle. Monday, 10, Alnwick; 12, Dunbar; 13, Edinburgh. Tuesday, 18, Dundee; 19, Arbroath; 20, Aberdeen. N.B. -- I have not yet finally settled the rest of my plan. I probably shall if I come to York. Many persons are continually teasing me to visit more places. Now let them judge whether I have not work enough.

To George Sykes Date: BRISTOL, March 13, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have particular reason to bless God for the good spirit wherein you found and left your father. [See letter of April 8.] This is the Lord's doing, and is undoubtedly the effect of prayer. But I am sorry he is not weary of pain, otherwise he would have applied the bruised or baked onions. I know no instance yet wherein they failed to ease if not take away the pain. I have much hope that your father's visit to Mr. Linder's will cut up all misunderstandings by the roots. We are all in peace here; and I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Jasper Winscom Date: BRISTOL, March 13, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JASPER, The account of Thomas Whitwood [A young man in the Isle of Wight who died suddenly while shouting, which awful providence was followed by an outpouring of the Spirit on the Society and congregation.] is very remarkable, and the story is well told; and God has done much honor to him by the happy effects which have been consequent upon his death. [A young man in the Isle of Wight who died suddenly while shouting, which awful providence was followed by an outpouring of the Spirit on the Society and congregation.] I am in no haste at all concerning building without having paid some more of our debts. I am likewise in no haste to multiply preachers or to divide circuits. Most of our circuits are too small rather than too large. I wish we had no circuit with fewer than three preachers in it or less than four hundred miles' riding in four weeks. Certainly no circuit shall be divided before the Conference. If we do not take care we shall all degenerate into milksops. Soldiers of Christ, arise! --I am, dear Jasper, Yours affectionately.

To Mrs. Cock Date: NEWCASTLE, June 6, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- My DEAR SISTER, -- To hear from you is always a pleasure to me; though it is a pleasure mixed with concern when I hear of your weakness or sickness. Only I know the Lord loveth whom He chasteneth. But of what kind is your illness Perhaps I might be enabled to tell you how to remove it. And if you can recover your health, you ought; for health is a great blessing. In August last my strength failed almost at once, and my sight in a great measure went from me. But all is well: I can still write almost as easily as ever, and I can read in a clear fight; and I think, if I could not read or write at all, I could still say something for God. [See letter of July 3 to Mr. Heath.] When you have more strength, tell me more of the work of God, whether in yourself or those round about you. And ought you not to let me know if you are in any temporal distress For everything that concerns you, concerns, my dear Jenny, Yours most affectionately. First addressed--

To John Dickins Date: WHITBY, June 19, I790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- This morning I received yours of April 9, with Mr. Asbury's bill enclosed. I was surprised when Lady Huntingdon absolutely forbade any preacher in her Connection to marry. All can say in that respect is, 'If thou mayst be free, use it rather.' I married because I needed a home, in order to recover my health; and I did recover it. But I did not seek happiness thereby, and I did not find it. We know this may be found in the knowledge and enjoyment and service of God, whether in a married or Single state. But whenever we deny ourselves and take up the cross for His sake, the happier we shall be both here and in eternity. Let us work on likewise, and in His time He will give us a full reward. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To James Creighton Date: COWBRIDGE, August 19, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- The proposal concerning a lecture for the instruction of the preachers, full counsel must mature. If I live to return to London, we may then consider it at large. When we meet we may talk largely on the subject, and weigh what may be said for and against it. I have often advised those who wrote me accounts of lives and deaths, 'Write enough; I can shorten your accounts as I please.' Few people know what part of this is material. You and I must determine this. Do not scruple to speak to Mr. Dickinson concerning the funerals, which I will confirm in due time. And speak twice or thrice in public of coming punctually at the time; telling 'otherwise we will not stay for you.' Mr. Peacock [John Peacock in the Grimsby Circuit.] may have what books he pleases either for himself or for the poor. Peace be with you and yours! I hope to be at Bristol on Saturday; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Jasper Winscom Date: BRISTOL, August 28, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JASPER, -- I do not see how you can be spared from your own circuit till another is procured to take your place. [Winstom had been Assistant in the Isle of Wight, and was now appointed to Oxfordshire.] Neither do I conceive how Sarum Circuit can bear the expense of another preacher. I am wellnigh tired of it. I have had more trouble with this circuit than with ten circuits besides. You did exceeding well in adjusting matters at Whitchurch; but I am sorry for poor Sister Haime. [John Haime, Wesley's soldier preacher, died at Whirchurch on Aug. 18, 1784. See letter in March 1744 to him.] I am sure she was a good woman once. I do not understand what you mean as to Winton. How did William Thom raise them eight pounds [William Thom had been Assistant at Saturn.] And on what account did you pay six pounds -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Thomas Taylor Date: NORWICH, October 14, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, -- It is a pity that good and useful man should be torn away from the people. But we know no way to help it. So 'what can't be cured must be endured.' According to your account, Brother Shaw [Thomas Shaw, his colleague in Hull, was 'remarkable for dis- interestedness and zeal'; he died in 1801.] and his wife have seventeen pounds a year. My judgment is, and yours was, that . . . out of the common stock. But I think one that has as much or more already cannot honestly demand or receive anything out of it. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mr. York Date: LONDON, October 22, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I think you know I would refuse you nothing which I could allow with a clear conscience. But I cannot, I dare not consent to the violation of that rule which was fixed in the late Conference: 'No preacher is to preach three times in a day to the same congregation.' It is neither good for his body nor soul. -- I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate brother.

To George Holder Date: LONDON, November 8, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- If you and your wife strengthen each other's hands in God, then you will surely receive a blessing from Him. But [it] is not abundance of money or any creature that can [make] us happy without Him. 'Delight ye in the Lord and He will give you your heart's desire.' It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading. A reading people will always be a knowing people. A people who talk much will know little. Press this upon them with your might; and you will soon see the fruit of your labors. I wish [every] circuit in England had three preachers, neither more nor less. This is worth thinking of. The Dales Circuit is too large. Five or six might be taken out of it, and given to Sunderland, Newcastle, and Alnwick. [The preachers in the Dales for 1790-1 were George Holder, Jonathan Hern, John Wittam; William Blaghorne, supernumerary. See letter of Oct. 30.] Peace be with your spirit! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Thomas Taylor Date: LONDON, January 6, 1791. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1791) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, -- With regard to the powerful workings of the Spirit, I think those words of our Lord are chiefly to be understood: 'The wind bloweth where it listeth; Thou hearest the sound thereof' (thou art sure of the fact), 'but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth.' Make your Yearly Subscription when you see best, only take care it does not interfere with any other subscription. The tract of Archbishop King has been particularly admired by many persons of excellent sense. I do not admire it so much as they do; but I like it well. Yet I have corrected far better tract on the subject, probably the last I shall have to publish. Indeed, I hope I shall not live to be useless. I wish you and yours many happy years; and am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

We afterwards rode through Longford; but did not stop, as the day was cool and pleasant. About two we were unawares encompassed with a multitude of Papists, coming out of their mass-house. One of them knowing me soon alarmed the rest, who set up a hideous roar, and drew up in battle array. But we galloped through them, and went on to Drumersmave, where I preached in the evening, and the next day, Wednesday, 25, rode on to Sligo. Never did I see a fairer prospect of good here. But 8 REv. J. wesLEY’s [June, 1760. blossoms are not fruit. As large, if not a larger congregation than before, was at the market-place in the evening. I was exceeding weary, having rode an extremely dull horse; but I soon forgot my weariness, seeing so many, young and old, rich and poor, receiving the word with all gladness. Thur. 26.--I preached at five, in a large, commodious Room which has been procured since I was here last. I breakfasted at Mr. A ’s, and dined at Mr. K. ’s : But two such families I have seldom seen. They had feared God for many years, and served him in the best manner they knew. Nothing was wanting but that they should hear the “more excellent way,” which they then embraced with all their heart. Fri. 27.--Our morning congregation was doubled. Mr. D did not fail to be there, though it seemed strange to him at first, when mention was made of preaching at five in the morning. In the evening we had a still larger congre gation, and I believe God applied his word. Some trembled, others wept. Surely some of these shall know there is “balm in Gilead.” Sat. 28.--At five the congregation was larger than ever it had been at that hour. After breakfast I rode out with Mr. K. and Mr. D., who, hearing I was ill-mounted, desired me to make use of one of his horses, during my stay in Ireland. In the evening (it being market-day, so that the market house was full of people) I wrote a line to the Colonel, who readily gave me the liberty of preaching in the barrack-yard. He likewise came to hear himself, as did several of the Officers. It was a solemn conclusion of the happiest birth-day which I have known for many years. Sun.

Friday, 7. I preached about nine at Andover, to a few dead stones; at one in Whitchurch, and in the evening at Basingstoke. The next day, Saturday, 8, I was once more brought safe to London. I spent about a fortnight, as usual, in examining the society; a heavy, but necessary, labour. Mon. 17.--I sent the following letter: “To the Editor of Lloyd's Evening Post. “SIR, November 17, 1760. “IN your last paper we had a letter from a very angry gentleman, (though he says he had put himself into as good humour as possible,) who personates a Clergyman, but is, I presume, in reality, a retainer to the theatre. He is very warm against the people vulgarly called Methodists, “ridiculous impostors,’ ‘religious buffoons,’ as he styles them; ‘saint errants,” (a pretty and quaint phrase,) full of “inconsiderate ness, madness, melancholy, enthusiasm;’ teaching a ‘knotty and unintelligible system’ of religion, yea, a ‘contradictory or self-contradicting; nay, a ‘mere illusion,” a “destructive scheme, and of pernicious consequence; since ‘an hypothesis is a very slippery foundation to hazard our all upon.’ “Methinks the gentleman has a little mistaken his character: He seems to have exchanged the sock for the buskin. But, be this as it may, general charges prove nothing: Let us come to particulars. Here they are: ‘The basis of Methodism is the grace of assurance,” (excuse a little impropriety of expression,) ‘regeneration being only a preparative to it.’ Truly this is somewhat ‘knotty and unintelligible.’ I will endeavour to help him out. The fundamental doctrine of the people called Methodists is, Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the true faith; the faith which works by love; which, by means of the love of God and our neighbour, produces both inward and outward holiness. This faith is an evidence of things not seen; and he that thus believes is regenerate, or born of God; and he has the witness in himself: (Call it assurance, or what you please:) The Spirit Nov. 1760.] JOURNAL. 25 itself witnesses with his spirit that he is a child of God. “From what scripture’ every one of these propositions ‘is collected, any common Concordance will show. “This is the true portraiture of Methodism, so called. ‘A religion supe rior to this’ (the love of God and man) none can ‘enjoy,' either in time or in eternity.

But, (as I said before,) ‘from what Scripture every one of my propositions is collected, any common Concordance will show.’ To save you trouble, I will for once point out those scriptures. ‘Whosoever will be saved must believe.” (Mark xvi. 16; Acts xvi. 31.) ‘This faith works by love.’ (Gal. v. 6.) It is “an evidence of things not seen.” (Heb. xi. 1.) “He that believes is born of God.” (1 John v. 1.) “He has the witness in himself.’ (Verse 10.) ‘The Spirit itself witnesses with his spirit, that he is a child of God.” (Rom. viii. 16.) “In the fifth you say, ‘You embrace any shift to twist words to your own meaning.” This is saying just nothing. Any one may say this of any one. To prove it, is another point. In the sixth you say, ‘No Protestant Divine ever taught your doctrine of assurance.’ I hope you know no better; but it is strange you should not. Did you never see Bishop Hall's Works? Was not he a Protestant Divine? Was not Mr. Perkins, Bolton, Dr. Sibbs, Dr. Preston, Arch bishop Leighton? Inquire a little farther; and do not run thus hand over head, asserting you know not what. By assurance, (if we must use the expression,) I mean ‘a con fidence which a man hath in God, that by the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God.” Stop! Do not run your head into a noose again. These are the words of the Homily. “In the seventh you grant, ‘that works are not meritorious, unless accompanied with faith. No, nor then neither. But Dec. 1760.] JOURNAL. 31 pray do not talk of this any more, till you know the difference between meritorious and rewardable; otherwise your ignorance will cause you to blunder on without shame and without end. “In your eighth you throw out a hard word, which some body has helped you to, Thaumaturg--what is it?--about Lay Preachers. When you have answered the arguments in the ‘Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, I will say something more upon that head.

If not, you may happen to be no Priest, and so all your ministry is nothing worth : Nay, by the same rule, he may happen to be no Bishop. And who can tell how often this has been the case? But if there has been only one instance in a thousand years, what becomes of your uninterrupted succession? “This ad hominem. But I have a word more ad rem. Can a man teach what he does not know? Is it possible a man should teach others what he does not know himself? Certainly it is not. Can a Priest then teach his hearers the way to heaven, marked out in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, if he does not know or understand the way himself? Nothing is more impossible. But how many of your Priests know nothing about it ! What avails then their commission to teach what they cannot teach, because they know it not? Did God then send these men on a fool’s errand? send them to do what they cannot do? O say not so ! And what will be the event of their attempting to teach they know not what? Why, ‘if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit.’” Sat. 21.--I spent some hours with Mr. L. and Mr. I'Anson, in order to prevent another Chancery suit. And though the matter could not then be fully adjusted, yet the suit did not go on. Tues. 24.--I retired to Lewisham, and transcribed the list of the society. About an hundred and sixty I left out, to whom I can do no good at present. The number of those which now remain, is two thousand three hundred and seventy-five. 46 REv. J. WESLEY’s [March, 1761. Fri. 27.--At twelve I met about thirty persons who had experienced a deep work of God; and I appointed an hour for meeting them every week. Whether they are saved from sin or no, they are certainly full of faith and love, and peculiarly helpful to my soul. Sun. MARCH 1.--We had a happy love-feast at the chapel. Many of our brethren spoke plainly and artlessly what God had done for their souls. I think none were offended; but many were strengthened and comforted. Wed.

From that instant he felt a turn within, and never swore an oath more. His whole behaviour in prison was serious and composed: He read, prayed, and wept much; especially after one of his fellow-prisoners had found peace with God. His hope gradually increased till this day, and was much strengthened at the Lord’s Supper; but still he complained, “I am not afraid, but I am not desirous, to die. I do not find that warmth in my heart. I am not sure my sins are forgiven.” He went into the cart, about twelve, in calmness, but mixed with sadness. But in a quarter of an hour, while he was wrestling with God in prayer, (not seeming to know that any one was near him,) “The Holy Ghost,” said he, “came upon me, and I knew that Christ was mine.” From that moment his whole deportment breathed a peace and joy beyond all utterance, till, after having spent about ten minutes in private prayer, he gave the sign. Sun. 25.--I took a comfortable leave of Kingswood, leaving both the society and School in a flourishing state; and the next morning, of Bristol, leaving the society larger than it had been for many years. Now, let zeal as well as “brotherly love continue,” and it will not decrease any more. Having travelled slowly through the intermediate societies, on Saturday, 31, I came to London. Sun. November 1.--I found the same spirit which I left here, both in the morning and evening service. Monday, 2, at five, I began a course of sermons on Christian Perfection. At seven I began meeting the classes. Tuesday, 10. I found the society at Deptford more alive than ever; a sure consequence of which is their increasing in number. Thurs day, 12. I rode to Brentford. Here likewise God is at work, and sinners are converted to him. Saturday, 14. I spent an hour with a little company near Grosvenor-Square. For many years this has been the darkest, driest spot, of all in or near London. But God has now watered the barren wilderness, and it is become a fruitful field. Mon. 16.--I retired to Lewisham, having many things to Dec. 1761.] JOURNAL. 75 write. Friday, 20. I spent an hour at St. George's Hospital. The behaviour of two or three patients there had done unspeakable good.

. It was supposed, eight or ten thousand were now actually risen, many of them well armed; and that a far greater number were ready to rise whenever they should be called upon. Those who refused to swear, they threatened to bury alive. Two or three they did bury up to the neck, and left them; where they must quickly have perished, had they not been found in time by some travelling by. At length, toward Easter, a body of troops, chiefly light horse, were sent against them. Many were apprehended and committed to gaol; the rest of them disappeared. This is the plain, naked fact, which has been so variously represented. Thur. 17.--I rode about thirty English miles, through a pleasant and well-cultivated country, to Youghall. It is finely situated on the side of an hill, so as to command a wide sea prospect. I preached in the evening at the Exchange. Abundance of people attended; as did the far greater part of them at five o’clock in the morning. I returned to Cork on Friday. Sunday, 20. At the desire of Captain Taylor, I went to Passage, and preached to many of the town’s people, and as many of the sailors as could attend. On Monday and Tuesday I visited the classes, and observed what was very uncommon; in two years there was neither any increase nor any decrease in this society. Two hundred and thirty-three members I left, and two hundred and thirty-three I find. Thur. 24.--I rode to Kinsale, and preached in the Exchange to a considerable number of attentive hearers. In the afternoon I rode to Bandon, and found the society much lessened, and dead enough. Yet the congregation in the main street was remarkably large, as well as deeply attentive. So it was on Friday. Saturday, 26. I visited the classes, and exhorted them to “be zealous and repent.” The word sunk into their hearts; so that when we met in the evening, they did not seem to be the same persons. They appeared to breathe quite another spirit, every one stirring up his 98 REv. J. wesLEY’s [July, 1762. neighbour. I know not when I have seen so deep and general an impression made in so short a time. Sun. 27.--I returned to Cork, and in the afternoon preached on the Barrack-Hill.

By this means do not you encourage his people, and strengthen the hands of his messengers? And is not this the way to enter into the spirit, and share the blessing, of a Christian community? Hereby, likewise, you may have the benefit of the advices and exhortations at the meeting of the society; and also of provoking one another, at the private meetings, to love and to good works. “The ordinary objections to such an union are of little weight with you. You are not afraid of the expense. You already give unto the Lord as much as you need do then : And you are not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, even in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. Perhaps you will say, ‘I am joined in affection.’ True; but not to so good effect. This joining half-way, this being a friend to, but not a member of, the society, is by no means so open a confession of the work and servants of God. Many go thus far who dare not go farther, who are ashamed to bear the reproach of an entire union. Either you are ashamed, or you are not. If you are, break through at once; if you are not, come into the light, and do what those well-meaning cowards dare not do. This imperfect union is not so encouraging to the people, not so strengthening to the Preachers. Rather it is weakening their hands, hindering their work, and laying a stumbling block in the way of others; for what can any man think, who knows you are so well acquainted with them, and yet do not join in their society? What can he think, but that you know them too well to come any nearer to them; that you know that kind of union to be useless, if not hurtful? And yet by this very union is the whole (external) work of God upheld throughout the nation; besides all the spiritual good which accrues to each member. O delay no longer, for the July, 1764.] JOURNAL. 189 sake of the work, for the sake of the world, for the sake of your brethren Join them inwardly and outwardly, heart and hand, for the sake of your own soul. There is something not easily explained in the fellowship of the Spirit, which we enjoy with a society of living Christians.

B. There are oaths of several honest men; and shall we take your word for it, that all is but misinformation? W. There was no oath given or taken. Besides, if it be 216 REv. J. weslEY’s [May, 1765. enough to accuse, who shall be innocent? I can appeal to the determination of the great day of judgment, that the large catalogue of matters laid to me are either things invented or mistaken. B. Did not you ride with your sword in the time of the Committee of Safety, and engage with them? W. Whatever imprudences in civil matters you may be informed I am guilty of, I shall crave leave to acquaint your Lordship, that, His Majesty having pardoned them fully, I shall wave any other answer. B. In what manner did the Church you spake of send you to preach 7 At this rate every body might preach. W. Not every one. Everybody has not preaching gifts and preaching graces. Besides, that is not all I have to offer to your Lordship to justify my preaching. B. If you preach, it must be according to order; the order of the Church of England upon ordination. W. What does your Lordship mean by ordination? B. Do not you know what I mean? W If you mean that sending spoken of in Romans x., I had it. B. I mean that. What mission had you? W. I had a mission from God and man. B. You must have it according to law, and the order of the Church of England. W. I am not satisfied in my spirit therein. B. Not satisfied in your spirit ! You have more new coined phrases than ever were heard of ! You mean your conscience, do you not? W. Spirit is no new phrase. We read of being sanctified in soul, body, and spirit. B. By spirit there we are to understand the upper region of the soul. W. Some think we are to take it for the conscience; but if your Lordship like it not so, then I say I am not satisfied in conscience, as touching the ordination you speak of. B. Conscience argues science, science supposes judgment, and judgment reason. What reason have you that you will not be thus ordained ? W.

Then it is high time to begin, and try if something can be done now. In the two following days I spoke as strongly as I could; and my labour was not in vain. The congre gation increased very considerably, and appeared to be of another spirit. They behaved better the second night than the first, and far better the third night than the second. Many of them, I believe, had a fresh call from God; and at the meeting of the society he was eminently present: So that, notwithstanding their decay, I could not but hope there would be a “blessing in the remnant.” I expected one to meet me at Sligo; but none appearing, I set out alone at five in the morning, JUNE 1, purposing to ride the new road to Castlebar; but on second thoughts I rode straight on to Foxford. At the entrance of the town I met three gentlewomen. One of them turned and cried out, “Is not that Mr. Wesley?” I thought it odd, but rode on. At the other end of the town a gentleman met me, and, taking hold of my bridle, said, “Sir, I must beg you to turn back, and dine with me at the barracks. There is a lady whom you know, and who will be very glad to see you.” I went back, and found one whom I had wished to see, more than most persons in the nation, but scarce ever expected to see her more. It was Miss B n, of Sligo; and I found Mrs. S n (now a widow) just the same amiable woman that Miss B--n was. I spent an hour or two in close, serious conversation, admiring the good providence of God. So I could not go the new road, which misses Foxford, because God had work for me to do there. About seven I preached at Castlebar, on “the excellency of the knowledge of. Jesus Christ.” I found another kind of people here than at Sligo, and was much refreshed among them. Sunday, 2. Most of the Gentry in the town being at the Court-yard in the evening, my text was, “We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness.” I know not that ever I spake more June, 1765.] JOURNAL.

Most of the Gentry in the town being at the Court-yard in the evening, my text was, “We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness.” I know not that ever I spake more June, 1765.] JOURNAL. 223 plain, though I supposed many would be offended; but I was mistaken; high and low seemed to approve: Some, I hope, profited. Mon. 3.--I rode to Newport, and preached at one to the largest congregation I remember to have seen there; and on Tuesday evening I took a solemn leave of the congregation at Castlebar. Wed. 5.--At five I took horse with a friend who undertook to bear me company to Galway. We faced the sun all the day; but light clouds and a small breeze made the heat tolerable. After resting an hour at Hollymount, (where the gardens, water-works, and once-lovely walks, swiftly running to ruin, give a striking proof that “the fashion of this world passeth away,”) we rode on to Mr. Lambert’s, near Headford, (a plain, open, hospitable man,) and thence to Galway, one of the largest towns I have seen since I left Glasgow. Our Room being small, some of our well-meaning friends were earnest for my preaching in the Exchange. Because I would not disoblige them, I began at seven; and was suffered to go on for a full quarter of an hour ! The beasts of the people (just as I expected) then roaring louder and louder, I walked through them without any hinderance or affront, and returned quietly to my lodgings. A large retinue attended me to the door; but it was only to gape and stare; none taking the pains either to lift up an hand, or to say anything bad or good. Thur. 6.--I was brought on my way by Lieutenant Cook, who was in all the actions at Fort-William-Henry, at Louis bourg, Quebec, Martinico, and the Havannah; and gave a more distinct account of those eminent scenes of Providence than ever I heard before. Although he was so often in the front of the battle, both against Indians, French, and Spaniards, and in the hottest fire, both advancing and retreat ing, he never received one wound.

any man wonder, if the members of it were more fierce, sour, and bitter of spirit, than some of them are? For what a pattern have they before them | I know it is commonly said, “The work to be done needed such a spirit.” Not so: The work of God does not, cannot need the work of the devil to forward it. And a calm, even spirit goes through rough work far better than a furious one. Although, therefore, God did use, at the time of the Reformation, some sour, over-bearing, passionate men, yet he did not use them because they were such, but notwithstanding they were so. And there is no doubt, He would have used them much more, had they been of an humbler and milder spirit. Tues. 24.--Before eight we reached Dumfries, and after a short bait pushed on in hopes of reaching Solway-Frith, before the sea was come in. Designing to call at an inn by the Frith side, we inquired the way, and were directed to leave the main road, and go straight to the house which we saw before us. In ten minutes Duncan Wright was embogged: However, the horse plunged on, and got through. I was inclined to turn back; but Duncan telling me I needed only go a little to the left, I did so, and sunk at once to my horse’s shoulders. He sprung up twice, and twice sunk again, each time deeper than before. At the third plunge he threw me on one side, and we both made shift to scramble out. I was covered with fine, soft mud, from my feet to the crown of my head; yet, blessed be God, not hurt at all. But we could not cross till between seven and eight o’clock. An honest man crossed with us, who went two miles out of his way to guide us over the sands to Skilburness; where we found a little clean house, and passed a comfortable night. Wed. 25.--We rode on to Whitehaven. Here I spent the rest of the week. Sunday, 29. I appointed the children to meet me; and desired Mr. Atlay to meet them for the time to come. At one, Robert Williams preached in the market place, to some thousands of people, all quiet and attentive.

It was near full at five in the morning; at noon I believe few were unaffected. When we took horse in the afternoon, it was quite calm, and the sun was extremely scorching; but the wind soon rose, and brought on the clouds; so we had a pleasant ride to Beverley. I preached at six in an House as warm as an oven; and the people were tolerably attentive. Who knows but we may find again, after many days, the bread we are now casting upon the waters? Sat. 19.--I took a view of Beverley Minster, such a parish church as has scarce its fellow in England. It is a most beautiful as well as stately building, both within and without, and is kept more nicely clean than any cathedral which I have seen in the kingdom; but where will it be when the earth is burned up, and the elements melt with fervent heat? About one I preached at Pocklington, (though my strength was much exhausted,) and in the evening at York. Sun. 20.--After preaching at eight, I went to St. Saviour gate church. Towards the close of the Prayers the Rector sent the sexton to tell me the pulpit was at my service. I preached on the conclusion of the Gospel for the day, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” I did not see one person laugh or smile, though we had an elegant congregation. Wed. 23.--I went on to Tadcaster. Here Mr. Ingham had 258 REv. J. wesley’s [July, 1766. once a far larger society than ours; but it is now shrunk into nothing; ours, meantime, is continually increasing. In the evening rich and poor flocked together, to whom I explained, “We know that we are of God; ” namely, “by the Spirit which he hath given us;” by the witness of the Spirit, and by the fruit confirming that witness. Thur. 24.--I preached at Pateley-Bridge. Such a congregation, both for number and seriousness, I have not seen since we left Newcastle. As it rained, I desired the men to put on their hats; but in two or three minutes they pulled them off again, and seemed to mind nothing but how they might “know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Fri.

287 as the townsmen. In the evening, notwithstanding the cold and blustering winds, I was obliged to preach abroad at Tyrrel's Pass. But the rain on the two following evenings drove us into the House at Edinderry. Saturday, 4. Having now finished my circuit, I went on cheerfully to Dublin. Sun. 5.--Our House was throughly filled, a sight which I have seldom seen. Friday, 10, we observed as a day of fasting and prayer. It was at our last meeting that we found the answer of our prayers. It seemed as if the windows of heaven were opened; the Spirit of grace and supplication was poured out. Many were filled with consolation; and many who had grown weary resolved to set out anew. Tues. 14.--A poor backslider, whom I found ten days ago dying in black despair, told me, “Now I am not afraid to die. I see Jesus just before me, and his face is all glory.” Instances of this kind do by no means prove that a saint cannot fall, even for ever; but only that God is “pitiful, and of tender mercy, not willing any should perish.” Thur. 16.--About ten I reached Donard, seven or eight and twenty English miles from Dublin. Standing under some shady trees, I enforced upon a serious congregation, “All things are ready; come unto the marriage.” From hence I rode on to Baltinglass, and preached on, “By grace are ye saved through faith.” It was sultry hot as we rode to Carlow; so that I was weary and faint when we came in : But I soon recovered, and at seven preached in the Sessions House, to a numerous congregation. But the greater part of them were like blocks, and some like wild asses’ colts. I was constrained to reprove them sharply. They received it well, and behaved with more decency. Fri. 17.--We lost our way in setting out of the town. It rained most of the day: However, this was far better than sultry heat. In the evening we returned to Dublin. In my scraps of time this week I read over that wonderful poem, “Fingal.” If it is genuine, if it is really extant (as many assure me it is) in the Erse language, it is an amazing proof of a genius in those barbarous times, little inferior to Homer or Virgill Mon.

Her confidence was more strong than ever, and the fear of God more deeply rooted in her heart. She abhorred all sin, that in particular which had occasioned her distress; of which, indeed, she had a peculiar detestation to her last hours. “God now made her heart strong; she walked seven years in the clear light of his countenance, never feeling a moment’s doubt of his favour, but having the uninterrupted witness of his Spirit. It was her meat and drink to do his will: His word, read or preached, was her delight, and all his ways were pleasant to her. She said, she never came from a sermon unimproved; often so refreshed as to forget weariness or pain. And she was truly diligent ‘in business,’ as well as “fervent in spirit.” “And now she thought she should never be removed, God had made her hill so strong. But soon after this, she was present when her sister was ill-used by her husband. She gave way to the temptation, fell into a passion, and again lost all her happiness. Yet not long; she continued instant in prayer, till God again healed her backsliding. “But from this time, as her temptations were more violent, so she had a keener sense of the remains of sin. Though she enjoyed a constant sense of the favour of God, yet she had also much fear, lest inbred sin should prevail over her, and make her bring a scandal upon the Gospel. She spent whole days in prayer, that God would not suffer her to be tempted above that she was able, and that with every temptation he would make a 290 REv. J. wesLEY’s [July, 1767. way for her to escape. And she was heard, so that her whole conversation adorned the doctrine of God her Saviour. “Yet she suffered much reproach, not only from the children of the world, but also from the children of God. These wounds sunk deep into her soul, and often made her weep before the Lord. Sometimes she felt resentment for a short time, of which darkness was the sure consequence; but if at any time she lost the consciousness of pardon, it almost took away her life; nor could she rest satisfied a moment, till she regained the light of his countenance.

20.--About one I preached on West-Bromwich Heath; in the evening, near the preaching-house in Wednes bury. The north wind cut like a razor; but the congregation, as well as me, had something else to think of. Tues. 22.--I read over a small book, “Poems, by Miss Whateley,” a farmer’s daughter. She had little advantage from education, but an astonishing genius. Some of her Elegies I think quite equal to Mr. Gray’s. If she had had proper helps for a few years, I question whether she would not have excelled any female poet that ever yet appeared in England. Wed. 23.--After preaching at several other places, I rode on to Wolverhampton. Here too all was quiet; only those who could not get into the House made a little noise for a time: And some hundreds attended me to my lodging; but it was with no other intent than to stare. Thur. 24.--I rode to Newcastle-under-Line, (a river so called,) one of the prettiest towns in England. Many here already know themselves: Not a few know Christ. The largeness of the congregation constrained me, though it was very cold, to preach in the open air, on, “God commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” I scarce ever saw a more attentive or better-behaved congregation. Fri. 25.--I turned aside a little to Burslem, and preached in the new House. That at Congleton is about the same size, but better contrived, and better finished. We had an elegant congregation at Congleton, yet earnestly attentive. It seems, the behaviour of the society in this town has convinced all the people in it but the Curate, who still refuses to give the sacrament to any that will not promise to hear these Preachers no more. Sat. 26.--We rode to Macclesfield. Sunday, 27. At eleven one of the Ministers preached a useful sermon, as did the other in the afternoon. At five in the evening we had thousands upon thousands; and all were serious, while I enforced, “Now is the day of salvation.” Mon. 28.--I met the Stewards of the several societies at Manchester. The times of outward distress are now over: God has given us plenty of all things. It remains only, to give ourselves up to Him who “giveth us all things richly to enjoy.” April, 1768.] JOURNAL. 315 Tues. 29.--I preached in Stockport at noon, and Manchester in the evening. Wednesday, 30.

But the largest of all attended at the Garth-Heads in the evening; and great part of them were not curious hearers, but well acquainted with the things of the kingdom of God. Wednesday, 25, and the two following days, being at Sunderland, I took down, from one who had feared God from her infancy, one of the strangest accounts I ever read; and yet I can find no pretence to disbelieve it. The well known character of the person excludes all suspicion of fraud; and the nature of the circumstances themselves excludes the possibility of a delusion. It is true there are several of them which I do not comprehend; but this is, with me, a very slender objection : For what is it which I do comprehend, even of the things I see daily? Truly not The smallest grain of sand, or spire of grass. I know not how the one grows, or how the particles of the other cohere together. What pretence have I then to deny well-attested facts, because I cannot comprehend them? It is true, likewise, that the English in general, and indeed most of the men of learning in Europe, have given up all accounts of witches and apparitions, as mere old wives’ fables. I am sorry for it; and I willingly take this opportunity of entering my solemn protest against this violent compliment which so many that believe the Bible pay to those who do not believe it. I owe them no such service. I take knowledge, these are at the bottom of the outcry which has been raised, and with such insolence spread throughout the nation, in direct opposition not only to the Bible, but to the suffrage of the wisest and best of men in all ages and nations. They well May, 1768.] JOURNAL, 325 know, (whether Christians know it, or not,) that the giving up witchcraft is, in effect, giving up the Bible; and they know, on the other hand, that if but one account of the intercourse of men with separate spirits be admitted, their whole castle in the air (Deism, Atheism, Materialism) falls to the ground. I know no reason, therefore, why we should suffer even this weapon to be wrested out of our hands. Indeed there are numerous arguments besides, which abun dantly confute their vain imaginations.

As I was looking for an handkerchief, he walked to the table, took one up,§§ brought and dropped it upon the bed. After this, he came three or four nights and pulled the clothes off, throwing them on the other side of the bed. “17. Two nights after, he came as I was sitting on the bed side, and, after walking to and fro, snatched the handkerchief from my neck. I fell into a swoon. When I came to myself he was standing just before me. Presently he came close to me, dropped it on the bed, and went away. * How often are spirits present when we do not think of it! + Why not ? What had he to do with the things under the sun ? : Did he then know Mr. Dunn's thoughts P § Was he sure of this ? Or did he only conjecture? | What a picture! Far beyond her invention : "I That he might not fright her, by vanishing away. ** Surely God saw this was as much as she could bear. ++. At her not speaking. But why could not he speak first P Is this contrary to a law of the invisible world P + Poor ghost ! Did this divert thee for a moment from attending to the worm that never dieth ? $$ So, he saw her thought ! But did he not pity her too? 332 REv. J. wesLEY’s [May, 1768. “18. Having had a long illness the year before, having taken much cold by his frequent pulling off the clothes, and being worn out by these appearances, I was now mostly confined to my bed. The next night, soon after eleven, he came again: I asked, ‘In God’s name, why do you torment me thus? You know it is impossible for me to go to Durham now. But I have a fear that you are not happy, and beg to know whether you are, or not.’ He answered, after a little pause, “That is a bold question for you to ask. So far as you knew me to do amiss in my lifetime, do you take care to do better.” I said, ‘It is a shocking affair to live and die after that manner.

O how do these Heathens shame us! Their very comedies contain both excellent sense, the liveliest pictures of men and manners, and so fine strokes of genuine morality, as are seldom found in the writings of Christians. Mon. 19.--I spent an hour with B a I n. If the account she gives is true, what blessed creatures are both those gentlemen and their wives that would use the most scurrilous language, yea, strike and drive out of their house, and that in a rainy night, a young gentlewoman, a stranger, far from home, for joining with the Methodists Do these call them selves Christians? Nay, and Protestants? Call them Turks. Papist is too good a name. Tues. 20.--I went to Shoreham. Here I read Mr. Arch deacon Blackburne’s “Considerations on the Penal Laws against Papists.” In the Appendix, p. 198, to my no small surprise, I read these words, said to be wrote by a gentleman at Paris: “The Popish party boast much of the increase of the Methodists, and talk of that sect with rapture. How far the Methodists and Papists stand connected in principles I know not; but I believe, it is beyond a doubt, that they are in constant correspondence with each other.” It seems this letter was published in the “St. James's Chronicle.” But I never saw or heard of it, till these words were printed in the “Canterbury Journal,” as Mr. Blackburne’s own. And he has nearly made them his own, by his faint note upon them, “I would willingly hope some doubt may be made of this.” Indeed he adds, “Mr. Whitefield took timely care to preclude all suspicions of his having any connexions with Popery.” Yea, and Mr. Wesley much more, even as early as Aug. 31, 1738. Again, in my Journal, Aug. 27, 1739, I published the only letter which I ever wrote to a Popish Priest. And it is in proof of this proposi 350 REv. J. wesLEY’s [Jan. 1769.

That he had not the least conception, much less experience, of inward religion: 2. That an ingenious man may prove just what he pleases, by well devised scriptural etymologies; especially if he be in the fashion, if he affects to read the Hebrew without vowels. And, 3. That his whole hypothesis, philosophical and theological, is unsupported by any solid proof. Fri. 23.--I was desired to hear Mr. Leoni sing at the Jewish synagogue. I never before saw a Jewish congregation behave so decently. Indeed the place itself is so solemn, that it might strike an awe upon those who have any thought of God. Wed. 28.--I sat down to read and seriously consider some of the writings of Baron Swedenborg. I began with huge prejudice in his favour, knowing him to be a pious man, one of a strong understanding, of much learning, and one who thoroughly believed himself. But I could not hold out long. Any one of his visions puts his real character out of doubt. He is one of the most ingenious, lively, entertaining madmen 388 REv. J. WESLEY’s [March, 1770. that ever set pen to paper. But his waking dreams are so wild, so far remote both from Scripture and common sense, that one might as easily swallow the stories of “Tom Thumb,” or “Jack the Giant-Killer.” Mon. MARCH 5-1 came to Newbury, where I had been much importuned to preach. But where? The Dissenters would not permit me to preachin their meeting-house. Some were then desirous to hire the old playhouse; but the good Mayor would not suffer it to be so profaned ! So I made use of a workshop,-a large, commodious place. But it would by no means contain the congregation. All that could hear behaved well; and I was in hopes God would have a people in this place also. The next evening I preached at Bristol, and spent the rest of the week there. Monday, 12. I went to Stroud, where the House was filled as usual. Tuesday, 13. I went by Painswick and Gloucester to Tewkesbury. Wednesday, 14. I preached in the new Room, which is just finished, at Upton; and thence rode on to Worcester, where I preached in a large, old, awkward place, to a crowded and much-affected audience.

5.--I rode to Ballyshannon, and preached in the Assembly Room. I was acquainted with some of the chief persons in the town; but they were ashamed to own me. Only some of them sent their compliments to me, properly so called. Hence, I rode to Manorhamilton, and in the evening preached in a pleasant meadow, to a very large congregation. But I found little life in the society. Thursday, 6. We came to Swadlingbar, and seemed to be got into another world. The people were all alive, full of faith and love, and panting after the whole image of God. The congregation in the evening refreshed me much, by their spirit, as well as their number: They made The hills and the dales With praises resound; singing with the spirit and with the understanding also. I have heard no such voices since we left Cork, nor seen so earnest a people since we left Limerick. Fri. 7.--About noon I preached at Tonnylommon, four miles short of Enniskillen, to just such another congregation, deeply athirst for the full salvation of God. In the afternoon we rode to Mr. A ’s at Sidare. Some time since, one of his neighbours, being angry that his sister resolved to save her soul, by the advice, as he supposed, of Nancy A5 came one Sunday in the afternoon while they were at prayers, burst into the room, struck a woman in the face who would have stopped him, and with his loaded whip struck Nancy A on the temple; so that she lay as dead for several hours. He designed, it seems, to make an end of her at once And indeed she never has been well since. Here a tent was set up on agreen, grassy place, amidst abun dance of people ripe for the Gospel. So I cried, in our Lord's words, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” And it is not easy to express the thirst, the vehement desire, which appeared in a great part of the congregation. June, 1771.] JOURNAL, 435 Sat. 8.--We set out for Ruskey, a little town near Macquire's Bridge. But before we had gone nine miles, we found a congregation waiting in the street at Lismolaw, where I know not who had given notice that I was to preach.

But before we had gone nine miles, we found a congregation waiting in the street at Lismolaw, where I know not who had given notice that I was to preach. I at first thought of riding on; but fearing it might hurt the poor people, I alighted, and preached immediately. They were all attention while I explained, “Ye are saved through faith.” About noon I preached at Ruskey. In the evening we came to Augher. For several days we have been among some of the warmest Christians in the kingdom. All at once we came to a people cold as ice. Here was a lively people! But they have long grieved the Holy Spirit of God, and he seems to be departed from them. Knowing few would come to the House, I stood abroad, and had forty or fifty hearers, but unconcerned enough. Sunday, 9. About eight I had a few more, and about an hundred in the evening. I went to church at Clogher: The Dean is one of the best readers I have heard, and one of the most easy, natural Preachers: And the congregation was not only large, but remarkably well-behaved. I seldom look at the old castle at Augher, without thinking of the famous Sir Phelim O’Neale. In the beginning of the Irish Rebellion, he called one night at Mr. Kennedy's, an intimate acquaintance and foster-brother, (a very sacred relation among the Irish,) and said, “Rise, come away with me, that I may protect you, for fear some of my straggling parties should hurt you.” Mrs. Kennedy, being very near her time, said, “Nay, gossip, consider my condition, and do not take my husband from me.” He replied, “You fool, it is for his own good.” But soon after they were gone, Mrs. K. said, “My heart misgives me; whatever comes of it, I must follow them.” So, as well as she could, she walked between her man-servant and her maid, an Irish girl. About sunrise they came near Augher castle, where Sir Phelim was standing with his men. Just by him was her husband, hanged on a tree. Sir Phelim, seeing her, sent and ordered the man and maid to stand from her. The man did so: The maid replied, “No; I will die with my mistress.” On this he ordered his men to fire. She fell, and two infants fell out of her.

Some months after I observed, testiculum alterum altero duplo majorem esse. I consulted a Physician: He told me it was a common case, and did not imply any disease at all. In May twelvemonth it was grown near as large as a hen’s egg. Being then at Edinburgh, Dr. Hamilton insisted on my having the advice of Drs. Gregory and Munro. They immediately saw it was a Hydrocele, and advised me, as soon as I came to London, to aim at a radical cure, which they judged might be effected in about sixteen days: When I came to London, I consulted Mr. Wathem. He advised me, 1. Not to think of a radical cure, which could not be hoped for, without my lying in one posture fifteen or sixteen days. And he did not know whether this might not give a wound to my constitution, which I should never recover. 2. To do nothing while I continued easy. And this advice I was determined to take. Last month the swelling was often painful. So on this day, Mr. Wathen performed the operation, and drew off something more than half a pint of a thin, yellow, transparent water. With this came out (to his no small surprise) a pearl of the Feb. 1774.] JOURNAL, 7 size of a small shot; which he supposed might be one cause of the disorder, by occasioning a conflux of humours to the part. Wednesday, 5. I was as perfectly easy, as if no operation had been performed. Tues. 11.-I began at the east end of the town to visit the society from house to house. I know no branch of the pas toral office, which is of greater importance than this. But it is so grievous to flesh and blood, that I can prevail on few, even of our Preachers, to undertake it. Sun. 23.−Mr. Pentycross assisted me at the chapel. O what a curse upon the poor sons of men is the confusion of opinions ! Worse by many degrees than the curse of Babel, the confusion of tongues. What but this could prevent this amiable young man from joining heart and hand with us? Mon. 24.--I was desired by Mrs. Wright, of New-York, to let her take my effigy in wax-work. She has that of Mr. Whitefield and many others; but none of them, I think, comes up to a well-drawn picture. Fri.

What a change is here, since our friend was afraid to let me preach in his house, lest the mob should pull it down | So I preached in the main street: And then was sown the first seed, which has since borne so plenteous a harvest. Hence I went to Leeds, and on Saturday, 30, to Birstal. Here, on the top of the hill, was the standard first set up four May, 1774.] JOURNAL. 13 and-thirty years ago. And since that time, what hath God wrought ! Sun. MAY 1.--I preached at eight on that delicate device of Satan to destroy the whole religion of the heart, the telling men not to regard frames or feelings, but to live by naked faith; that is, in plain terms, not to regard either love, joy, peace, or any other fruit of the Spirit: Not to regard whether they feel these, or the reverse; whether their souls be in an heavenly or hellish frame ! At one I preached at the foot of the hill to many thousand hearers; and at Leeds to about the same number, whom I besought in strong terms not to receive “the grace of God in vain.” On Monday and Tuesday I preached at Otley and Pateley Bridge. Wednesday, 4. I went on to Ambleside; and on Thursday to Whitehaven. Monday, 9. I set out for Scotland. At eight I preached in the Castle-yard at Cockermouth, to abundance of careless people, on, “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” In the evening I preached at Carlisle. On Tuesday I went on to Selkirk, and on Wed nesday to Edinburgh; which is distant from Carlisle ninety five miles, and no more. Thursday, 12. I went in the stage coach to Glasgow; and on Friday and Saturday, preached on the old Green, to a people, the greatest part of whom hear much, know every thing, and feel nothing. s Sun. 15.--My spirit was moved within me at the sermons I heard both morning and afternoon. They contained much truth, but were no more likely to awaken one soul than an Italian Opera.

Smith struck in just then : In a minute more we had been down the precipice; and had not the horses then stopped at once, they must have carried him and us down together. “Let those give thanks whom the Lord hath redeemed, and delivered from the hand of the enemy l’” Fri. 24.--I read over Dr. Wilson’s tract on the Circulation of the Blood. What are we sure of but the Bible? I thought nothing had been more sure, than that the heart is the grand moving power, which both begins and continues the circula tion. But I think the Doctor has clearly proved, that it does not begin at the heart; and that the heart has quite another office, only receiving the blood, which then moves on through its channels, on the mere principle of suction, assisted by the ethereal fire, which is connected with every particle of it. Sun. 26.--In the morning I preached at the Ballast-Hills, among the glassmen, keelmen, and sailors. As these had nothing to pay, I exhorted them “to buy wine and milk with out money and without price.” Mon. 27.-I took my leave of this lovely place and people, and about ten preached to a serious congregation at Durham. About six I preached at Stockton-upon-Tees, on a text suited to the congregation, “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Tues. 28.--This being my birth-day, the first day of my seventy-second year, I was considering, How is this, that I find just the same strength as I did thirty years ago? That my sight is considerably better now, and my nerves firmer, than they were then? That I have none of the infirmities of old age, and have lost several I had in my youth? The grand cause is, the good pleasure of God, who doeth whatsoever pleaseth Him. The chief means are, 1. My constantly rising at four, for about fifty years. 2. My generally preaching at five in the morning; one of the most healthy exercises in the world. 3. My never travelling less, by sea or land, than four thousand five hundred miles in a year. In the evening I preached at Yarm; about eleven the next day at Osmotherley; and in the evening at Thirsk. Thursday, 30.

In 1760, Thomas Grover came down, and preached several times at Whittlebury and at Towcester. She went to hear him, but with a fixed resolution, “not to be catched,’ as she called it; but her resolution was vain. In a sermon she heard at Towcester, she was cut to the heart. Her convictions grew deeper and deeper from that time, for about a year. She was then hearing him preach, but felt her heart as hard as the nether millstone. Yet at the love-feast which followed, it was suddenly broke in pieces, and she was all melted into tears, by 32 REv. J. W.ESLEY’s [Oct. 1774. those words applied to her inmost soul, in an inexpressible manner, My God is reconciled, His pardoning voice I hear ! He owns me for his child; I can no longer fear. “3. The day following, being exercised with strong tempta tion, she gave up her confidence; but the next night wrestling with God in prayer, she received it again with double evidence: And though afterwards she frequently felt some doubts, yet it never continued long; but she had, in general, a clear, abiding sense of the pardoning love of God. “4. From that time she walked steadily and closely with God, and was a pattern to all around her. She was particularly exact in reproving sin, and lost no opportunity of doing it. In her whole conversation she was remarkably lively, and yet gentle towards all men. Her natural temper indeed was passionate, but the grace of God left scarce any traces of it. “5. From the very time of her justification, she clearly saw the necessity of being wholly sanctified; and found an unspeakable hunger and thirst after the full image of God; and in the year 1772, God answered her desire. The second change was wrought in as strong and distinct a manner as the first had been. Yet she was apt to fall into unprofitable reason ings; by which her evidence was often so clouded, that she could not affirm she was saved from sin, though neither could she deny it. But her whole life bore witness to the work which God had wrought in her heart.

We were unwilling to part with her, but seeing the pain she was in, could not wish it should con tinue; and so gave her up to God. I sat up with her that night, and the next day, June 7, she fell asleep.” Monday, 31, and the following days, I visited the societies near London. Friday, NoveMBER 4. In the afternoon John Downes (who had preached with us many years) was saying, “I feel such a love to the people at West-Street, that I could be content to die with them. I do not find myself very well; but I must be with them this evening.” He went thither, and began preaching, on, “Come unto me, ye that are weary and heavy-laden.” After speaking ten or twelve minutes, he sunk down, and spake no more, till his spirit returned to God. I suppose he was by mature full as great a genius as Sir Isaac Newton. I will mention but two or three instances of it:--When he was at school, learning Algebra, he came one day to his master, and said, “Sir, I can prove this proposi tion a better way than it is proved in the book.” His master thought it could not be; but upon trial, acknowledged it to be so. Some time after, his father sent him to Newcastle with a clock, which was to be mended. He observed the clockmaker's tools, and the manner how he took it in pieces, and put it together again; and when he came home, first made himself tools, and then made a clock, which went as true as any in the town. I suppose such strength of genius as this, has scarce been known in Europe before. Another proof of it was this:--Thirty years ago, while I was shaving, he was whittling the top of a stick: I asked, “What Nov. 1774.] JOURNAL. 35 are you doing?” He answered, “I am taking your face, which I intend to engrave on a copper-plate.” Accordingly, without any instruction, he first made himself tools, and then engraved the plate. The second picture which he engraved, was that which was prefixed to the “Notes upon the New Testament.” Such another instance, I suppose, not all England, or perhaps Europe, can produce.

On Saturday, I sat up all day, and walked across the room many times, without any weariness; on Sunday, I came down stairs, and sat several hours in the parlour; on Monday, I walked out before the house; on Tuesday, I took an airing in the chaise; and on Wednesday, trusting in God, to the astonishment of my friends, I set out for Dublin. I did not determine how far to go that day, not knowing how my strength would hold. But finding myself no worse at Bannbridge, I ventured to Newry; and, after travelling thirty (English) miles, I was stronger than in the morning. Thur. 29.--I went on to the Man-of-war, forty (Irish) miles from the Globe, at Newry. Friday, 30. We met Mr. Simpson, (with several other friends,) coming to meet us at Drogheda; who took us to his country seat at James-Town, about two miles from Dublin. Tues. JULY 4.--Finding myself a little stronger, I preached for the first time; and I believe most could hear. I preached 50 REv. J. WESLEY’s [Aug. 1775. on Thursday again; and my voice was clear, though weak. So on Sunday I ventured to preach twice, and found no weariness at all. Monday, 10. I began my regular course of preaching, morning and evening. While I was in Dublin, I read two extraordinary books, but of very different kinds;--Mr. Sheridan’s “Lectures on Elocu tion,” and “The Life of Count Marsay;” and was disappointed in both. There is more matter in the penny tract, “On Ac tion and Utterance,” abundantly more, than in all Mr. S.'s book; though he seems to think himself a mere Phenix. Count Marsay was doubtless a pious man, but a thorough enthusiast; guided, in all his steps, not by the written word, but by his own imagination; which he calls the Spirit. Sun. 23.--I again assisted at St. Patrick’s in delivering the elements of the Lord's Supper. In the evening I embarked in the Nonpareil; and, about ten on Tuesday morning, landed at Park-Gate. Wednesday, 26. I found one relic of my illness, --my hand shook, so that I could hardly write my name. But after I had been well electrified, by driving four or five hours, over very rugged, broken pavement, my complaint was removed, and my hand was as steady as when I was ten years old.

Wraxal’s Travels, in which are several ingenious remarks. But the account he gives of Count Struenzee is a mistake, from beginning to end. Struenzee was as bad a man as most that ever lived. He caused many horrid abuses; but never reformed, or desired to reform, one. And there was abundant proof of the crime for which he suffered: Therefore, the behaviour of King George was exactly right. Mon. 27.--I set out for Norwich. That evening I preached at Colchester; Tuesday, at Norwich; Wednesday, at Yarmouth. About this time I published the following letter in Lloyd's “Evening Post:”-- “I HAve been seriously asked, “From what motive did you publish your Calm. Address to the American Colonies 2’ “I seriously answer, Not to get money. Had that been my motive, I should have swelled it into a shilling pamphlet, and have entered it at Stationers' Hall. “Not to get preferment for myself, or my brother's chil dren. I am a little too old to gape after it for myself: And if my brother or I sought it for them, we have only to show them to the world. “Not to please any man living, high or low. I know man kind too well. I know they that love you for political service, love you less than their dinner; and they that hate you, hate you worse than the devil.- “Least of all did I write with a view to inflame any : Just the contrary. I contributed my mite toward putting out the flame which rages all over the land. This I have more oppor tunity of observing than any other man in England. I see with pain to what an height this already rises, in every part of the nation. And I see many pouring oil into the flame, by crying out, ‘How unjustly, how cruelly, the King is using the poor Americans; who are only contending for their liberty, and for their legal privileges l’ 6U, REv. J. Wesley’s [Nov. 1775.

1777, universal answer was, “If we must ‘know them by their fruits,’ there is no decay in the work of God, among the people in general. The societies are not dead to God: They are as much alive as they have been for many years. And we look on this report as a mere device of Satan, to make our hands hang down.” “But how can this question be decided ?” You, and you, can judge no farther than you see. You cannot judge of one part by another; of the people of London, suppose, by those of Bristol. And none but myself has an opportunity of seeing them throughout the three kingdoms.- But to come to a short issue. In most places, the Methodists are still a poor, despised people, labouring under reproach, and many inconveniences; therefore, wherever the power of God is not, they decrease. By this, then, you may form a sure judg ment. Do the Methodists in general decrease in number? Then they decrease in grace; they are a fallen, or, at least, a falling people. But they do not decrease in number; they continually increase: Therefore they are not a fallen people. The Conference concluded on Friday, as it began, in much love. But there was one jarring string: John Hilton told us, he must withdraw from our Connexion, because he saw the Methodists were a fallen people. Some would have reasoned with him, but it was lost labour; so we let him go in peace. Mon. 11.--I returned to London. Thursday, 14. I drew up proposals for the “Arminian Magazine.” Friday, 15. The Committee for the building met, which is now ready for the roof. Hitherto God has helped us! Sun. 17.-In the calm, fair evening, I took the opportunity to preach in Moorfields. The congregation was at least as large as I ever saw there. As yet I do not see any sign of the decay of the work of God in England. Mon. 18.--I went down to Bristol again, and read in the way Dr. M'Bride’s “Practice of Physic.” Undoubtedly it is an ingenious book; yet it did not answer my expectation.

Though the ground was covered with snow, so many people flocked together, that I was constrained to preach in the court of the prison. The snow continued to fall, and the north wind to whistle round us; but I trust God warmed many hearts. I preached at Wakefield in the evening; Thursday, 29, at Rothwell and Leeds; and on Friday noon, at Harewood. In the afternoon we walked to Mr. Lascelles's house. It is finely situated on a little eminence, commanding a most delightful prospect of hill and dale, and wood and water. It is built of a fine white stone, with two grand and beautiful fronts. I was not much struck with anything within. There is too much sameness in all the great houses I have seen in England; two rows of large, square rooms, with costly beds, glasses, chairs, and tables. But here is a profusion of wealth; every pane of glass, we were informed, cost six-and-twenty shillings. One looking-glass cost five hundred pounds, and one bed, six hundred. The whole floor was just on the plan of Montague May, 1779.] JOURNAL. 15] House; now the British Museum. The grounds round the house are pleasant indeed, particularly the walks on the river side, and through the woods. But what has the owner thereof, save the beholding them with his eyes? Sat. MAY 1.--I looked over the first volume of Mr. Bryant’s “Ancient Mythology.” He seems to be a person of immense reading, and indefatigable industry. But I have two objec tions to the whole work: 1. That his discoveries, being built chiefly on etymologies, carry no certainty in them. 2. That were they ever so certain, they are of no consequence. For instance, Whether Chiron was a man or a mountain, and whether the Cyclops were giants or watch-towers, are points of no manner of importance, either to me or any man living. Sun. 2.--Dr. Kershaw, the Vicar of Leeds, desired me to assist him at the sacrament. It was a solemn season. We were ten Clergymen, and seven or eight hundred communicants. Mr. Atkinson desired me to preach in the afternoon. Such a congregation had been seldom seen there; but I preached to a much larger in our own House at five ; and I found no want of strength. Fri.

He was scarce come out, when another party beset the house, and came so quick, that he had but just time to get in again; and the maid, not having flax enough at hand, covered the door with foul linen. When these also had wearied them selves with searching, and went away, he put on his boots and great coat, took a gun and a rug, (it being a sharp frost,) and crept into a little marsh near the house. A third party came quickly, swearing he must be about the house, and they would have him if he was alive. Hearing this, he stole away with full speed, and lay down near the sea-shore, between two hillocks, covering himself with sea-weeds. They came so near that he heard one of them swear, “If I find him, I will hang him on the next tree.” Another answered, “I will not stay for that: I will shoot him the moment I see him.” After some time, finding they were gone, he lifted up his head, and heard a shrill whistle from a man fifty or sixty yards off. He soon knew him to be a deserter from the rebel army. He asked Mr. H. what he designed to do; who answered, “Go in my boat to the English ships, which are four or five and twenty miles off.” But the rebels had found and burnt the boat. So, knowing their life was gone if they stayed till the morning, they got into a small canoe, (though liable to overset with a puff of wind,) and set off from shore. Having rowed two or three miles, they stopped at a little island, and made a fire, being almost perished with cold. But they were quickly alarmed, by a boat rowing toward the shore. Mr. Hatton, standing up, said, “We have a musket and a fusee. If you load one, as fast as I discharge the other, I will give a good account of them w 174 REv. J. WESLEY’s [Feb. 1780. all.” He then stepped to the shore, and bade the rowers stop, and tell him who they were; declaring he would fire among them, if any man struck another stroke. Upon their answering, he found they were friends, being six more deserters from the rebel army.

I went to Sheffield: But the House was not ready; so I preached in the Square. I can hardly think I am entered this day into the seventy eighth year of my age. By the blessing of God, I am just the same as when I entered the twenty-eighth. This hath God wrought, chiefly by my constant exercise, my rising early, and preaching morning and evening. Thur. 29.--I was desired to preach at Worksop; but when I came, they had not fixed on any place. At length they chose a lamentable one, full of dirt and dust, but without the least shelter from the scorching sun. This few could bear: So we had only a small company of as stupid people as ever I saw. In the evening I preached in the old House at Sheffield; but the heat was scarce supportable. I took my leave of it at five in the morning, and in the evening preached in the new House, thoroughly filled with rich and poor; to whom I declared, “We preach Christ crucified:” And He bore witness to his word in a very uncommon manner. Saturday, JULY 1. I preached once more at Rotherham. Sunday, 2. At eight I preached at Sheffield. There was afterwards such a number of communicants as was never seen at the old church before. I preached again at five; but very many were constrained to go away. We concluded our work by visiting some that were weak in body, but strong in faith, desiring nothing but to do and suffer the will of God. 188 REv. J. Wesley’s [July, 1780. Monday, 3, and Tuesday, 4, I preached at Derby; Wed nesday, 5, at a church eight miles from it. In the afternoon, as I was going through Stapleford, in my way to Nottingham, I was stopped by some who begged me to look into their new preaching-house. Many following me, the House was soon filled; and we spent half an hour together, to our mutual comfort. In the evening I preached at Nottingham. Wed nesday, 5. I preached in Loughborough about eleven, and in the evening at Leicester. I know not how it is that I constantly find such liberty of spirit in this place. Thur. 6.--The Room at five, according to custom, was fille." from end to end.

We drove with two horses as far as Reading. Two more were then added, with a postilion, who knowing little of his business, instead of going forward, turned quite round on a sloping ground, so that we expected the coach to overturn every moment. So it must have dome, but that the coachman instantly leaped off, and with some other men held it up, till we got out at the opposite door. The coach was then soon set right, and we went on without let or hinderance. After spending two or three days at Bath, on Thursday, 8, I went forward to Bristol. On Monday, 12, and the following days, I visited the society; but was surprised to find no greater increase, considering what Preachers they had had. Sun. 18.-I preached morning and evening at the Room; in the afternoon at Temple church. The congregation here is remarkably well-behaved; indeed so are the parishioners in general. And no wonder, since they have had such a succession of Rectors as few parishes in England have had. The present incumbent truly fears God. So did his predecessor, Mr. Catcott, who was indeed as eminent for piety as most Clergymen in England. He succeeded his father, a man of the same spirit, who I suppose succeeded Mr. Arthur Bedford; a person greatly esteemed, fifty or sixty years ago, for piety as well as learning. Mon. 19.--For several years the severe weather has begun the very day I set out from Bristol. But the mild weather now continued seven or eight days longer. This evening I preached at Stroud; Tuesday, 20, at Stroud, Gloucester, Tewkesbury, and Worcester. Wednesday, 21. At noon I preached in Bewdley; and at Worcester in the evening. Thursday, 22. I preached in Bengeworth church, and had some conversation with that amiable man, Mr. B. I preached in the evening at Pebworth church, on those words in the Lesson, “Godliness with contentment is great gain.” 198 REv. J. weslEY’s [March, 1781. Sat. 24.--I was invited to preach at Quinton, five miles from Birmingham. I preached there at noon in the open air, to a serious and attentive congregation. Some of them appeared to be very deeply affected. Who knows but it may continue? In the evening I had another comfortable opportunity with our friends at Birmingham. Sun. 25.--I preached at Birmingham, Dudley, and Wednesbury. Monday, 26.

Soon after we got, I know not how, into Holyhead harbour, after being sufficiently buffeted by the winds and waves, for two days and two nights. The more I considered, the more I was convinced, it was not the will of God I should go to Ireland at this time. So we went into the stage-coach without delay, and the next evening came to Chester. I now considered in what place I could spend a few days to the greatest advantage. I soon thought of the Isle of Man, and those parts of Wales which I could not well see in my ordinary course. I judged it would be best to begin with the latter. So, after a day or two's rest, on Wednesday, 18, I April, 1781.] J() URNAL. 201 set out for Brevva, purposing to take Whitchurch (where I had not been for many years) and Shrewsbury in my way. At noon I preached in Whitchurch, to a numerous and very serious audience; in the evening at Shrewsbury; where, seeing the earnestness of the people, I agreed to stay another day. *Here I read over Sir Richard Hill’s Letter to Mr. Madan, on his Defence of Polygamy. I think it is home to the point; and wish always to write (if I must write controversy) in just such a spirit. Not knowing the best way from hence to Brecon, I thought well to go round by Worcester. I took Broseley in my way, and thereby had a view of the iron bridge over the Severn : I suppose the first and the only one in Europe. It will not soon be imitated. In the evening I preached at Broseley; and on Saturday, 21, went on to Worcester. I found one of our Preachers, Joseph Cole, there; but unable to preach through his ague. So that I could not have come more opportunely. Sunday, 22. I preached at seven in our own Room. At three the Service began at St. Andrew’s. As no notice had been given of my preaching there, only as we walked along the street, it was supposed the congregation would be small; but it was far otherwise. High and low, rich and poor, flocked together from all parts of the city; and truly God spoke in his word; so that I believe most of them were almost persuaded to be Christians.

I never saw in England so many stout, well-looking Preachers together. If their spirit be answerable to their look, I know not what can stand before them. In the June, 1781.] JOURNAL. 207 afternoon I rode over to Dawby, and preached to a very large and very serious congregation. Fri. 8.-Having now visited the island round, east, south, north, and west, I was thoroughly convinced that we have no such Circuit as this, either in England, Scotland, or Ireland. It is shut up from the world; and, having little trade, is visited by scarce any strangers. Here are no Papists, no Dissenters of any kind, no Calvinists, no disputers. Here is no opposition, either from the Governor, (a mild humane man,) from the Bishop, (a good man,) or from the bulk of the Clergy. One or two of them did oppose for a time; but they seem now to understand better. So that we have now rather too little, than too much, reproach; the scandal of the cross being, for the present, ceased. The natives are a plain, artless, simple people; unpolished, that is, unpolluted; few of them are rich or genteel; the far greater part, moderately poor; and most of the strangers that settle among them are men that have seen affliction. The Local Preachers are men of faith and love, knit together in one mind and one judgment. They speak either Manx or English, and follow a regular plan, which the Assistant gives them monthly. The isle is supposed to have thirty thousand inhabitants. Allowing half of them to be adults, and our societies to contain one or two and twenty hundred members, what a fair proportion is this What has been seen like this, in any part either of Great Britain or Ireland? Sat. 9.--We would willingly have set sail; but the strong north-east wind prevented us. Monday, 11. It being moderate, we put to sea: But it soon died away into a calm ; so I had time to read over and consider Dr. Johnson’s “Tour through Scotland.” I had heard that he was severe upon the whole nation; but I could find nothing of it. He simply mentions (but without any bitterness) what he approved or disapproved; and many of the reflections are extremely judicious ; some of them very affecting. Tues. 12.--The calm continuing, I read over Mr.

6.--I could procure no other conveyance to St. Alban’s but in an open chaise; and hence, (the frost being very sharp,) I contracted a severe cold. Monday,9. I had a better convey ance into Kent. In the evening I preached at Canterbury; on Tuesday at Dover; the next day at Canterbury again. On Thursday, 12, and on Friday morning, I preached at Chatham; and in the afternoon returned to London. Sat.14.--I found the cold which I had contracted in the way 242 REv. J. wesley’s ' [Feb. 1783. to St. Alban’s exceedingly increased, having a deep and violent cough, which continued at intervals till spring. Mon. 16.-I retired to Hoxton for a few days. Thursday, 19. About eleven at night, a gun was fired at our chamber window, and at the same time a large stone thrown through it. (Probably in sport, by some that had been drinking.) I presently went to sleep again. Sat. 21.-I visited Mr. Maxfield, struck with a violent stroke of palsy. He was senseless, and seemed near death; but we besought God for him, and his spirit revived, I cannot but think, in answer to prayer. Sunday, 29. I buried the remains of Thomas Forfit, a rich, and yet a generous man. He was unwearied in well doing; and in a good old age, without any pain or struggle, fell asleep. Tuesday, 31. We concluded the year with a solemn watch-night. Wed. JANUARY 1, 1783.−May I begin to live to-day ! Sunday, 5. We met to renew our covenant with God. We never meet on this occasion without a blessing; but I do not know that we had ever so large a congregation before. Fri. 10.--I paid one more visit to Mr. Perronet, now in his ninetieth year. I do not know so venerable a man. His understanding is little, if at all, impaired; and his heart seems to be all love. A little longer I hope he will remain here, to be a blessing to all that see and hear him. Sun. 19.--I preached at St. Thomas's church in the after noon, and at St. Swithin's in the evening. The tide is now turned; so that I have more invitations to preach in churches than I can accept of. Sat. FEBRUARY 1.-I drank tea at Mr. A--’s, in the Maze-pond, Southwark; but both Mr.

Thur. 19.-I went on to Mr. Bowen's at Llyngwair; another most agreeable place; but more so because of the company, L Mr. and Mrs. Bowen, his brother, and six of their eleven child ren, two of whom are lately come from the University. Friday, 20. About eight I preached in the church at Newport, and spoke strong words, if haply some might awake out of sleep. Thence we went to Haverfordwest; it being the day when the Bishop held his visitation. As I was returning in the afternoon from visiting some of the poor people, a carriage in the street obliged me to walk very near a Clergyman, who made me a low bow : I did the same to him; though I did not then know the Bishop; who has indeed won the hearts of the people in general by his courteous and obliging behaviour. Sun. 22.-I heard a good sermon in the church at Carmar then, (being the Assize sermon,) on, “There is no power but of God.” In the evening I preached in the market-place, to, I think, the largest congregation I ever saw in Wales. Thurs day, 26. On the road I read over Voltaire's Memoirs of him self. Certainly never was a more consummate coxcomb! But even his character is less horrid than that of his royal hero ! Surely so unnatural a brute never disgraced a throne before Cedite, Romani Catamiti / Cedite, Grail /* A monster that made it a fixed rule to let no woman and no Priest enter his palace; that not only gloried in the constant practice of Sodomy himself, but made it free for all his subjects 1 * Ye Catamites among the Greeks and Romans, concede to this wretch the palm of criminality.--EDIT. 288 REv. J. wesley’s [Sept. 1784. What a pity that his father had not beheaded him in his youth, and saved him from all this sin and shame ! In the evening I preached in the Town-Hall at Cardiff, and showed the scriptural meaning of that much-mistaken word, “A Christian.” Friday, 27. I preached at Newport. I hardly know such another place; the people hear, and hear, and are as much moved as the benches they sit upon.

At ten, a very sensible Clergyman came in, with whom I conversed very largely, as he talked elegant Latin, and exceeding fluently, beyond any I have lately seen on the Continent. Having seen all the friends I proposed to see, on Thursday, 24, I took my leave of this loving people, and the pleasant city of Amsterdam, very probably for ever ; and, setting out at seven in the morning, between two and three in the after noon came to Utrecht. Mr. Vanrocy, the gentleman who had engaged me to lodge, sent a coach to wait for me at my landing; and received me with the courtesy and cordiality of an old Yorkshire Methodist. Fri. 25.--I kept close to my work all the day. I dined at Mr. Loten's, where was such variety of food as I never saw at any Nobleman’s table, either in England or Ireland. In the afternoon we took a view of a widow lady’s gardens in the suburbs of Utrecht. I believe, from the house to the end of the grand vista is about a mile. I think the gardens are not half as broad; but such exquisite beauty and symmetry I never saw before. In grandeur it is not to be named with a few places in England; but in elegance and variety, I verily believe it equals, if not exceeds, any place of the size in Europe. In the evening I expounded to a select company of very honourable ladies, Matt. vii. 24; Miss Loten interpreting for me sentence by sentence: And I know not but God might bless this poor way of preaching to the Dutch, as he did that to the Indians by David Brainerd. Sat. 26.-I had a long conversation with a gentleman whom almost all the religious world take for a madman. I do not know that I have found one of so deep experience since I left London. I have no doubt of his being perfected in love : He has a clear witness of it, and has had many years, without any interruption. I had now an opportunity of being throughly informed concerning the University of Utrecht. As the young gentlemen are scattered over this town, and live without the least control, they do anything, or nothing, as they please; and as they have no tutors, they have none to check them.

Afterwards, meeting the society, I took a solemn leave of them, which I hope they will remember if they see me no more. Wed. 13.--We crossed over to Sarum, where I preached in the evening, with much enlargement of heart. Thursday, 14. Setting out about three, we came to Gloucester early in the afternoon. I spoke very plain, both in the evening and the 434 REv. J. wesley’s [Aug. 1788. morning. Friday, 15. We went on to Monmouth; but Mr. G. has done with us; so I lodged with my old friend, Mr. Johnson; and instead of that lovely young woman, S B , who is removed to Cowbridge, met with her younger sister, who more than supplies her place. She is a jewel indeed; full of faith and love, and zealous of good works. I preached both in the evening and the next morning with the demonstration of the Spirit; and all the congregation, rich and poor, appeared to be sensible of it. Saturday, 16. We had an easy journey to Brecon, where I preached in the evening. Sunday, 17. I preached in the Room at eight, on the fruit of the Spirit. In the evening I preached in the spacious Town Hall, so filled as it had never been before. I think there is a little company here that are truly alive to God. Monday, 18. I went on to Carmarthen, and preached at six, on 2 Cor. v. 19; and again at five in the morning, Tuesday, 19, when the Room was well filled. A servant of Mr. Bowen's came early in the morning to show us the way to Llyngwair : And it was well he did; for I do not know that we could otherwise have found our way thither. We met (as I expected) with a hearty welcome. At five I preached in Newport church, to a large congregation, and with agreater prospect of doing good than ever I had before. We passed an agreeable evening at Llyngwair. Wednesday, 20. I went to Tracoon, one of the most venerable seats in Great Britain. The good old house is buried in woods and mountains, having no resemblance to any place I have seen. It is just suited to the good old Admiral, with his four maiden sisters; the youngest of whom, I suppose, has lived more than seventy years.

Thirteenth, And for the convenience of the chapels and pre mises already, or which may hereafter be, given or conveyed upon the trusts aforesaid, situate in Ireland, or other parts out of the kingdom of Great Britain, the Conference shall and may, when and as often as it shall seem expedient, but not otherwise, appoint and delegate any member or members of the Conference, with all or any of the powers, privileges, and advantages, herein-before contained or vested in the Conference; and all and every the acts, admissions, expul sions, and appointments whatsoever of such member or members of the Conference, so appointed and delegated as aforesaid, the same being put into writing, and signed by such delegate or delegates, and entered in the Journals or Minutes of the Conference, and subscribed as after mentioned, shall be deemed, taken, and be, the acts, admis sions, expulsions, and appointments of the Conference, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever, from the respective times when the same shall be done by such delegate or delegates; notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary. Fourteenth, All resolutions and orders touching elections, admissions, expulsions, consents, dispensations, delegations, or appointments and acts whatsoever of the Conference, shall be entered and written in the Journals or Minutes of the Conference, which shall be kept for that purpose, publicly read, and then subscribed by the President and Secretary thereof for the time being, during the time such Conference shall be assembled; and when so entered and subscribed, shall be had, taken, received, and be, the acts of the Confer ence, and such entry and subscription as aforesaid shall be had, taken, received, and be, evidence of all and every such acts of the said Conference, and of their said delegates, without the aid of any other proof; and whatever shall not be so entered and subscribed as aforesaid, shall not be had, taken, received, or be, the act of the Conference: And the said President and Secretary are hereby required and obliged to enter and subscribe, as aforesaid, every act whatever of the Conference.

10. Again. It certainly possible that a work abundantly shorter than Mr. Henry's may nevertheless be considerably fuller, in some particulars. There are many words which he passes over without any explanation at all; as taking it for granted that the reader already knows the meaning of them. But this is a supposition not to be made; it is an entire mistake. For instance: What does a common man know of an Omer, or a Hin "Why Moses explains his own meaning: "An Omer is the tenth part of an Ephah." True; but what does the honest man know of an Ephah Just as much as of an Omer. I suppose that which led Mr. Henry into these omissions, which otherwise are unaccountable, was the desire of not saying what others had said before, Mr. Pool in particular. This is easily gathered from his own words, "Mr. Pool's English Annotations are of admirable use; especially for "the explaining of scripture phrases, opening the sense and clearing "of difficulties. I have industriously declined as much as I could what "is to be found there." I wish he had not. Or at least that he had given us the same sense in other words. Indeed he adds, "Those "and other annotations are most easy to be consulted upon occasion." Yes by those that have them: but that is not the case with the generality of Mr. Henry's readers. And besides they may justly expect that so large a comment will leave them no occasion to consult others. 11. It is possible likewise to penetrate deeper into the meaning of some scriptures than Mr. Henry has done. Altho' in general he is far from being a superficial writer, yet he is not always the same. Indeed if he had, he must have been more than man, considering the vastness of his work. It was scarce possible for any human understanding, to furnish out such a number of folios, without sinking sometimes into trite reflections and observations, rather lively than deep. A stream that runs wide and covers a large tract of land, will be shallow in some places. If it had been confined within a moderate channel, it might have flowed deep all along.

Chapter X This chapter contains, the only certain account extant of the original of nations; and yet, perhaps, there is no nation, but that of the Jews, that can be confident from which of these seventy fountains (for many there are here) it derived its streams. Through the want of early records, the mixtures of people, the revolutions of nations, and distance of time, the knowledge of the lineal descent of the present inhabitants of the earth is lost: nor were any genealogies preserved but those of the Jews, for the sake of the Messiah. Only, in this chapter, we have a brief account, Of the posterity of Japheth, ver. 2 - 5. The posterity of Ham, ver. 6 - 20. and, in that particular notice taken of Nimrod, ver. 8 - 9. The posterity of Shem, ver. 23 - 31. Moses begins with Japhet's family, either because he was the eldest, or because that lay remotest from Israel, and had least concern with them, at that time when Moses wrote; and therefore he mentions that race very briefly; hastening to give account of the posterity of Ham, who were Israel's enemies, and of Shem, who were Israel's ancestors: for it is the church that the scripture designed to be the history of, and of the nations of the world only as they were some way or other interested in the affairs of Israel. The posterity of Japheth were allotted to the isles of the Gentiles, which were solemnly, by lot, after a survey, divided among them, and probably this island of ours among the rest. All places beyond the sea, from Judea, are called isles, Jer 25:22, and this directs us to understand that promise, Isa 42:4, the isles shall wait for his law, of the conversion of the Gentiles to the faith of Christ. Began to be mighty on the earth - That is, whereas those that went before him were content to stand upon the same level with their neighbours, Nimrod could not rest in this parity, but he would top his neighbours, and lord over them. The same spirit that the giants before the flood were acted by, Gen 6:4, now revived in him; so soon was that tremendous judgment, which the pride and tyranny of those mighty men brought upon the world, forgotten.

God hath taken away the cattle of your father and given them to me - Thus the righteous God paid Jacob for his hard service out of Laban's estate; as afterwards he paid the seed of Jacob for their service of the Egyptians with their spoils. Whereas Jacob looked upon the wealth which God had passed over from Laban to him as his wages, they look upon it as their portions; so that both ways God forced Laban to pay his debts, both to his servant and to his daughters. Laban went to shear his sheep - That part of his flock which was in the hands of his sons, three days journey off. Now, It is certain it was lawful for Jacob to leave his service suddenly: it was not only justified by the particular instructions God gave him, but warranted by the fundamental law of self - preservation which directs us, when we are in danger, to shift for our own safety, as far as we can do it without wronging our consciences. It was his prudence to steal away unawares to Laban, lest if Laban had known, he should have hindered him, or plundered him. It was honestly done to take no more than his own with him, the cattle of his getting. He took what providence gave him, and would not take the repair of his damages into his own hands. Yet Rachel was not so honest as her husband; she stole her father's images, and carried them away. The Hebrew calls them Teraphim. Some think they were only little representations of the ancestors of the family in statue or picture, which Rachel had a particular fondness for, and was desirous to have with her now she was going into another country. It should rather seem they were images for a religious use, penates, household gods, either worshipped, or consulted as oracles; and we are willing to hope, that she took them away, not out of covetousness much less for her own use, or out of any superstitious fear lest Laban, by consulting his teraphim, might know which way they were gone; (Jacob no doubt dwelt with his wives as a man of knowledge, and they were better taught than so) but with a design to convince her father of the folly of his regard to those as gods which could not secure themselves.

And when Jacob had made an end of commanding of his sons - He addressed himself to his dying work. He put himself into a posture for dying; having sat upon the bed - side to bless his sons, the spirit of prophecy bringing fresh oil to his expiring lamp, when that work was done, he gathered up his feet into the bed, that he might lie along, not only as one patiently submitting to the stroke, but as one chearfully composing himself to rest. He then freely resigned his spirits into the hand of God, the father of spirit; he yielded up the ghost; and his separated soul went to the assembly of the souls of the faithful, who after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh are in joy and felicity; he was gathered to his people.

I will turn aside and see - He speaks as one inquisitive, and bold in his inquiry; whatever it was, he would if possible know the meaning of it. When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see it, God called to him - If he had carelessly neglected it, it is likely God had departed and said nothing to him. God called and said, Moses, Moses - This which he heard could not but surprise him much more than what he saw. Divine calls are then effectual, when the spirit of God makes them particular, and calls us as by name. The Word calls, Ho, every one; the Spirit, by the application of that, calls, Ho, such a one; I know thee by name. Here am I - Not only to hear what is said, but to do what I am bidden. Put off thy shoes from off thy feet - The putting off the shoe was then what the putting off the hat is now, a token of respect and submission. The ground is holy ground, made so by this special manifestation of the divine presence. We ought to approach to God with a solemn pause and preparation; and to express our inward reverence, by a grave and reverent behaviour in the worship of God, carefully avoiding every thing that looks light, or rude. I am the God of thy father - He lets him know it is God that speaks to him, to engage his reverence, faith and obedience. Thy father, thy pious father Amram, and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thy ancestors. Engaged to them by solemn covenant, which I am now come to perform. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God - The more we see of God, the more cause we shall see to worship him with reverence and godly fear. And even the manifestations of God's grace should increase our humble reverence of him. I am come down to deliver them - When God doth something very extraordinary, he is said to come down to do it, as <cite>Isa 64:1</cite>. This deliverance was typical of our redemption by Christ, and in that the eternal Word did indeed come down from heaven to deliver us.

He is also higher than all princes and potentates, who also are called gods, and has both an incontestable authority over them, and an irresistible power to control them; he manages them all as he pleaseth, and gets honour upon them how great soever they are. Now know I: he knew it before, but now he knew it better; his faith grew up to a full assurance, upon this fresh evidence; for wherein they dealt proudly - The magicians or idols of Egypt, or Pharaoh and his grandees, opposing God, and setting up in competition with him, he was above them. The magicians were baffled, Pharaoh humbled, his powers broken, and Israel rescued out of their hands. And Jethro took a burnt offering for God - And probably offered it himself, for he was a priest in Midian, and a worshipper of the true God, and the priesthood was not yet settled in Israel. And they did eat bread before God - Soberly, thankfully, in the fear of God; and their talk such as became saints. Thus we must eat and drink to the glory of God; as those that believe God's eye is upon us. Moses sat to judge the people - To answer enquiries; to acquaint them with the will of God in doubtful cases, and to explain the laws of God that were already given. The people came to enquire of God - And happy was it for them that they had such an oracle to consult. Moses was faithful both to him that appointed him, and to them that consulted him, and made them know the statutes of God, and his laws - His business was not to make laws, but to make known God's laws: his place was but that of a servant. I judge between one and another - And if the people were as quarrelsome one with another as they were with God, he had many causes brought before him, and the more because their trials put them to no expence. Not good - Not convenient either for thee or them. Be thou for them to God - ward - That was an honour which it was not fit any other should share with him in. Also whatever concerned the whole congregation must pass through his hand, <cite>Ex 18:20</cite>.

1st. They are told what is the day, they must observe, a seventh after six days labour, whether this was the seventh by computation from the first seventh, or from the day of their coming out of Egypt, or both, is not certain. A late pious Writer seems to prove, That the sabbath was changed, when Israel came out of Egypt; which change continued till our Lord rose again: But that then the Original Sabbath was restored. And he makes it highly probable, at least, That the sabbath we observe, is the seventh day from the creation. 2dly, How it must be observed;

He that designed only the burning of thorns might become accessary to the burning of corn, and should not be held guiltless. If the fire did mischief, he that kindled it must answer for it, though it could not be proved that he designed the mischief. Men must suffer for their carelessness, as well as for their malice. It will make us very careful of ourselves, if we consider that we are accountable not only for the hurt we do, but for the hurt we occasion through inadvertency. If a man deliver goods, suppose to a carrier to be conveyed, or to a warehouse - keeper to be preserved, or cattle to a farmer to be fed upon a valuable consideration, and a special confidence reposed in the person they are lodged with; in case these goods be stolen or lost, perish or be damaged, if it appear that it was not by any fault of the trustee, the owner must stand to the loss, otherwise he that has been false to his trust must be compelled to make satisfaction. If a man (suppose) lent his team to his neighbour, if the owner were with it, or were to receive profit for the loan of it, whatever harm befel the cattle the owner must stand to the loss of it: but if the owner were so kind to the borrower as to lend it him gratis, and put such a confidence in him as to trust it from under his own eye, then, if any harm happened, the borrower must make it good. Learn hence to be very careful not to abuse any thing that is lent to us; it is not only unjust but base and disingenuous, we should much rather chuse to lose ourselves, than that any should sustain loss by their kindness to us. If the father refused, he shall pay money - This shews how ill a thing it is, and by no means to be allowed, that children should marry without their parents consent: even here where the divine law appointed the marriage, both as a punishment to him that had done wrong, and a recompence to her that had suffered wrong, yet there was an express reservation for the father's power; if he denied his consent, it must be no marriage.

It was an instance of the equity of our law, that if an alien be tried for any crime except treason, the one half of his jury, if he desire it, shall be foreigners; a kind provision that strangers may not be oppressed. For ye know the heart of a stranger - You know something of the griefs and fears of a stranger by sad experience. The institution of the sabbatical year was designed,

Not by my essence, which is everywhere; but by my grace and glorious operations. According to all that I shew thee - God shewed him an exact plan of it in little, which he must conform to in all points. And God did not only shew him the model, but gave him also particular directions how to frame the tabernacle, according to that model, in all the parts of it. When Moses was to describe the creation of the world, tho' it be such a stately and curious fabrick, yet he gave a very short and general account of it; but when he comes to describe the tabernacle, he doth it with the greatest niceness and accuracy imaginable: for God's church and instituted religion is more precious to him than all the rest of the world. And the scriptures were written not to describe to us the works of nature, (a general view of which is sufficient to lead us to the knowledge of the Creator,) but to acquaint us with the methods of grace, and those things which are purely matters of revelation. The ark was a chest or coffer, in which the two tables of the law, written with the finger of God, were to be deposited. If the Jewish cubit was, as some learned men compute three inches longer than our half - yard, (twenty one inches in all) this chest or cabinet was about fifty - two inches long, thirty - one broad and thirty one deep; it was overlaid within and without with thin plates of gold; it had a crown, or cornish of gold round it; rings and staves to carry it with; and in it he must put the testimony. The tables of the law are called the testimony, because God did in them testify his will; his giving them that law was in token of his favour to them, and their acceptance of it was in token of their subjection to him. This law was a testimony to them to direct them in their duty, and would be a testimony against them if they transgressed. The ark is called the ark of the testimony, <cite>Exo 30:6</cite>, and the tabernacle, the tabernacle of the testimony, <cite>Num 10:11</cite>.

This book, containing the actions of about one month's space, acquaint us with the Levitical ceremonies used after the tabernacle was erected in the wilderness, and is therefore called Leviticus: It treats of laws concerning persons, and things, clean and unclean; as also purifyings in general once a year, and divers particular cleansings, with a brief repetition of divers laws, together with certain feasts, of seven years rest, of the jubilee, and the redemption of things consecrated to God; but especially of such ceremonies as were used about offerings and sacrifices, which were both expiatory for trespasses committed, whether by the People or the priests; and also eucharistical in the owning of God's blessings. Here are declared also laws for the regulating of these, and prescribing the lawful time for marriages; here is set down how several abominable sins are punishable by the magistrate; and how these things are to be managed by certain persons appropriated to the tribe of Levi, whose office is confirmed from heaven, and the male - administration of it threatened, and the judgment particularly inflicted on Nadab and Abihu for an example. Here are promises, and threatenings, to the observers, or breakers of this law. The records of even these abrogated laws are of use to us, for the strengthening of our faith in it, as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world; and for the increase of our thankfulness to God, for freeing us from that heavy yoke.

All his flesh - When it appeared in some one part it discovered the ill humour which lurked within, and withal the inability of nature to expel it; but when it overspread all, it manifested the strength of nature conquering the distemper, and purging out the ill humours into the outward parts. In it - That is in the place where the appearance of leprosy was, when the flesh was partly changed into a whiter colour, and partly kept its natural colour, this variety of colours was an evidence of the leprosy, as one and the same colour continuing, was a sign of soundness. The raw flesh - This is repeated again and again, because raw or living flesh might rather seem a sign of soundness, and the priest might easily be deceived by it, and therefore he was more narrowly to look into it. Unto white - As it is usual with sores, when they begin to be healed, the skin which is white, coming upon the flesh. Dark - Or, and be contracted. A plague - Or the plague of leprosy, of which he is speaking. A hot burning - A burning of fire, by the touch of any hot - iron, or burning coals, which naturally makes an ulcer or sore in which the following spot is. Of the burning - Arising from the burning mentioned, Lev 13:24. A yellow, thin hair - The leprosy in the body turned the hair white, in the head or beard it turned it yellow. And if a man's hair was yellow before, this might easily be distinguished from the rest, either by the thinness or smallness of it, or by its peculiar kind of yellow, for there are divers kinds of the same colour manifestly differing from one another. No black hair - For had that appeared, it had ended the doubt, the black hair being a sign of soundness and strength of nature, as the yellow hair was a sign of unsoundness. He shall be shaven - For the more certain discovery of the growth or stay of the plague. He shall not seek - He need not search for the hair, or any other sign, the spreading of it being a sure sign of leprosy. If the spots be darkish white - Or, contracted, or confined to the place where they are, and white.

Their fathers - The people were divided into twelve tribes, the tribes into great families, Num 26:5, these great families into lesser families called the houses of their fathers, because they were distinguished one from another by their fathers. Reuben - The tribes are here numbered according to the order or quality of their birth, first the children of Leah, then of Rachel, and then of the handmaids. Deuel - Called Reuel, Num 3:14, the Hebrew letters Daleth and Resh being often changed. He numbered them - For ought that appears in one day. By their generations - That is, the persons begotten of Reuben's immediate children, who are here subdivided into families, and they into houses, and they into particular persons. Threescore and fourteen thousand - Far more than any other tribe, in accomplishing Jacob's prophecy, Gen 49:8 - 12. Ephraim - Above 8000 more than Manasseh, towards the accomplishment of that promise, Gen 48:20, which the devil in vain attempted to defeat by stirring up the men of Gath against them, 1Chr 7:21,22. Thirty five thousand - The smallest number, except one, though Benjamin had more immediate children than any of his brethren, Gen 46:21, whereas Dan had but one immediate son, Gen 46:23, yet now his number is the biggest but one of all the tribes, and is almost double to that of Benjamin. Such great and strange changes God easily can, and frequently doth make in families, 1Sam 2:5. And therefore let none boast or please themselves too much in their numerous offspring. Levi - Because they were not generally to go out to war, which was the thing principally eyed in this muster, Nu 1:3,20,45, but were to attend upon the service of the tabernacle. They that minister upon holy things, should not entangle themselves in secular affairs. The ministry itself is work enough for a whole man, and all little enough to be employed in it. The tabernacle of testimony - So called here, and Exo 38:21, because it was made chiefly for the sake of the ark of the testimony, which is often called the testimony. That cometh nigh - The stranger elsewhere is one of another nation, here one of another tribe. So as to do the offices mentioned, Nu 1:50.

Holy water - Water of purification appointed for such uses. This was used, that if she were guilty, she might be afraid to add profaneness to her other crime. An earthen vessel - Because, after this use, it was to be broken in pieces, that the remembrance of it might be blotted out as far as was possible. Dust - An emblem of vileness and misery. From the floor of the tabernacle - Which made it holy dust, and struck the greater terror into the woman, if she were guilty. Before the Lord - Before the tabernacle with her face towards the ark. Uncover her head - Partly that she might be made sensible how manifest she and all her ways were to God; partly in token of her sorrow for her sin, or at least for any cause of suspicion which she had given. In her hands - That she herself might offer it, and thereby call God to be witness of her innocency. Bitter - So called either from the bitter taste which the dust gave it, or from the bitter effects of it upon her, if she were guilty. That causeth the curse - Not by any natural power, but by a supernatural efficacy. By an oath - To answer truly to his question, or to declare whether she be guilty or no, and after such oath shall say as follows. An oath - That is, a form of cursing, that when they would curse a person, they may wish that they may be as miserable as thou wast. Thy thigh - A modest expression, used both in scripture, as Gen 46:26, Exo 1:5, and other authors. To rot - Heb. to fall, that is, to die or waste away. To swell - Suddenly and violently till it burst, which the Jews note was frequent in this case. And it was a clear evidence of the truth of their religion. Amen, amen - That is, so let it be if I be guilty. The word is doubled by her as an evidence of her innocency, and ardent desire that God would deal with her according to her desert. In a book - That is, in a scroll of parchment, which the Hebrews commonly call a book. Blot them out - Or scrape them out and cast them into the bitter water.

Chapter IX Orders concerning eating the passover on the 14th day of the first month, ver. 1 - 5. On the 14th day of the second month, by those who had been hindered, ver. 8 - 12. Concerning the negligent and the stranger, ver. 13, 14. Concerning the pillar of cloud and fire, ver. 15 - 23 In the first month - And therefore before the numbering of the people, which was not till the second month, Num 1:1,2. But it is placed after it, because of a special case relating to the passover, which happened after it, upon occasion whereof he mentions the command of God for keeping the passover in the wilderness, which was done but once, and without this command they had not been obliged to keep it at all, till they came to the land of Canaan. They came - For resolution of their difficulty. An offering - Which if we neglect, we must be cut off, and if we keep it in these circumstances, we must also be cut off. What shall we do Unclean or in a journey - Under these two instances the Hebrews think that other hindrances of like nature are comprehended; as if one be hindered by a disease, or by any other such kind of uncleanness; which may seem probable both from the nature of the thing, and the reason of the law which is the same in other cases. A stranger - Who is a proselyte. Namely, the tent of the testimony - Or, the tabernacle above the tent of the testimony, that is, that part of the tabernacle in which was the testimony, or the ark of the testimony; for there the cloudy pillar stood. This was an evident token of God's special presence with, and providence over them. And this cloud was easily distinguished from other clouds, both by its peculiar figure and by its constant residence in that place. Fire - That they might better discern it and direct themselves and their journeys or stations by it. Had it been a cloud only, it had scarce been visible by night: And had it been a fire only, it would have been scarce discernable by day. But God was pleased to give them sensible demonstrations, that he kept them night and day.

The God of heaven is truly and earnestly desirous of the salvation of poor sinners. He has given abundant proof that he is so: he gives us time and space to repent; by his mercies invites us to repentance, and waiteth to be gracious: has sent his son to redeem us, published a general offer of pardon, promised his spirit to those that pray for him; and has said, yea and sworn, that he hath no pleasure in the death of a sinner!

Give him a charge - Immediately from myself for his greater encouragement, and to gain him more authority with the people. The strangers of the land - That is, of the Canaanites, who will be turned out of their possessions, and become as strangers in their own land. This aggravates their folly to worship such gods as could neither preserve their friends, nor annoy their enemies. Hide my face - Withdraw my favour and help. Whatever outward troubles we are in if we have but the light of God's countenance, we are safe. But if God hide his face from us then we are undone. Write this song - Which is contained Deu 32:1 - 43, and is put into a song that it may be better learned, and more fixed in their minds and memories. Put it in their mouths - Cause them to learn it, and sing it one to another, to oblige them to more circumspection. A witness - Of my kindness in giving them so many blessings, of my patience in bearing so long with them, of my clemency in giving them such fair and plain warnings, and my justice in punishing such an incorrigible people. Their imaginations - Inclinations to Idolatry, which they do not check, as they ought; and some of them do not only cherish it in their hearts, but as far as they can and dare, secretly practise it, as may be gathered from Amos 5:25 Acts 7:43. The Levites - The priests, Deu 31:9, who also were Levites. Take this book - Probably the very same book, which (after having been some way misplaced) was found in the house of the Lord, in the days of Josiah, and publickly read by the king himself, for a witness against a people, who were then almost ripe for ruin. In the side - In the outside, in a little chest fixed to it, for nothing but the tables of stone were contained in the ark, 1Kings 8:9, here it was kept for greater security and reverence. A witness against thee - Against thy people, to whom he turns his speech that they might be the more affected with it.

Near unto it - Partly from the respect they should bear to the ark; but chiefly, that the ark marching so far before you into the river, and standing still there 'till you pass over, may give you the greater assurance of your safe passage. Ye have not passed this way heretofore - While we are here, we must expect unusual events, to pathways that we have not passed before: and much more when we go hence, when we pass thro' the valley of the shadow of death. But if we have the assurance of God's presence, what have we to fear And Joshua said - Or rather, had said, the day before their passage; for it follows, to - morrow. Sanctify yourselves - Both in soul and body, that you may be meet to receive such a favour, and with more reverence observe this great work, and fix it in your hearts. Take up - Namely, upon your shoulders; for so they were to carry it, Numb 7:9. Before the people - Not in the middle of them, as you used to do. Magnify thee - That is, to gain thee authority among them, as the person whom I have set in Moses's stead, and by whom I will conduct them to the possession of the promised land. The brink - Heb. to the extremity, so far as the river then spread itself, which was now more than ordinary, Jos 3:15. In Jordan - Within the waters of Jordan, in the first entrance into the river; Where they stood for a season, 'till the river was divided, and then they went into the midst of it, and there abode 'till all the people were passed over. Come hither - To the ark or tabernacle, the place of public assemblies. The Lord your God - Who is now about to give a proof that he is both the Lord, the omnipotent governor of heaven and earth, and all creatures; and your God, in covenant with you, having a tender care and affection for you. Ye shall know - By experience and sensible evidence. The living God - Not a dull, dead, senseless God, such as the gods of the nations are; but a God of life, and power, and activity to watch over you, and work for you. Among you - Is present with you to strengthen and help you.

Came suddenly - Though assured by God of the victory, yet he uses all prudent means. All night - It is not said, that he went from Gilgal to Gibeon in a night's space; but only that he travelled all night; unto which you may add part either of the foregoing or of the following day. It is true, God had promised, that he would without fail deliver the enemies into his hand. But God's promises are intended, not to slacken, but to quicken our endeavours. He that believeth doth not make haste, to anticipate providence; but doth make haste to attend it, with a diligent, not a distrustful speed. At Gibeon - Heb. in Gibeon, not in the city, but in the territory belonging to it. Great stones - That is, hailstones of extraordinary greatness, cast down with that certainty, as to hit the Canaanites and not their pursuers the Israelites. Josephus affirms, that thunder and lightning were mixed with the hail, which may seem probable from Hab 3:11. They had robbed the true God of his honour, by worshipping the host of heaven, and now the hosts of heaven fights against them, and triumphs in their ruin. Beth - horon lay north of Gibeon, Azekah and Makkedah, south, so that they fled each way. But which way soever they fled, the hailstones pursued them. There is no fleeing out of the hands of God! Spoke Joshua - Being moved to beg it out of zeal to destroy God's enemies, and directed to it by the motion of God's spirit, and being filled with holy confidence of the success, he speaks the following words before the people, that that they might be witnesses. In the sight - That is, in the presence and audience of Israel. Over Gibeon - That is, in that place and posture in which now it stands towards, and looks upon Gibeon. Let it not go down lower, and by degrees, out of the sight of Gibeon.

last mentioned. Among the cities of Manasseh - That is, are intermixed with their cities, which was not strange nor unfit, these two being linked together by a nearer alliance than the rest. His border - Manasseh's, whose portion is here described, and whose name was last mentioned. In Asher - That is, upon the tribe of Asher; for though Zebulon came between Asher and them for the greatest part of their land; yet it seems there was some necks of land, both of Ephraim's and of Manasseh's, which jutted out farther than the rest, and touched the borders of Asher. And it is certain there were many such incursions of the land of one tribe upon some parcels of another, although they were otherwise considerably distant one from the other. Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher - As Ephraim had some cities in the tribe of Manasseh, and as it was not unusual, when the place allotted to any tribe was too narrow for it, and the next too large, to give away part from the larger to the less portion; nay, sometimes one whole tribe was taken into another; as Simeon's was into Judah's portion, when it was found too large for Judah. Inhabitants of Dor - Not the places only, but the people; whom they spared and used for servants. Three countries - The words may be rendered, the third part of that country; and so the meaning may be, that the cities and towns here mentioned are a third part of that country, that is, of that part of Issachar's and Asher's portion, in which those places lay. Children of Joseph - That is, of Ephraim and Manasseh. Spake unto Joshua - That is, expostulated with him, when they went and saw that portion which was allotted them, and found it much short of their expectation. One portion - Either, because they really had but one lot, which was afterwards divided by the arbitrators between them. Or, because the land severally allotted to them, was but little enough for one of them. A great people - He retorts their own argument; seeing thou art a great and numerous people, turn thy complaints into action, and enlarge thy borders by thy own hand, to which thou mayest confidently expect God's assistance.

Pleased them - They were fully satisfied with this answer. Is among us - By his gracious presence, and preventing goodness, in keeping you from so great an offence, and all of us from those calamities that would have followed it. Hand of the Lord - That is, from the wroth and dreadful judgments of God, by avoiding that sin which would have involved both you and us in a most bloody war; you have delivered us from the evils we feared. He that prevents an approaching disease or mischief, doth as truly deliver a man from it, as he that cures or removes it after it hath been inflicted. Destroy the land - As they were by the law of God obliged to do, if they had been guilty and persisted therein; as afterwards they did the tribe of Benjamin for the same reason. The altar Ed - That is, a witness: a witness of the relation they stood in to God and Israel, and of their concurrence with the other tribes in the common faith, that Jehovah he is God. It was a witness to posterity, of their care to transmit their religion pure and entire; and would be a witness against them, if ever they should turn from following the Lord their God.

He will repent of his former kindnesses, and his goodness abused will be turned into fury. The Lord - Namely, him only, and not strange gods. Against yourselves - This solemn profession will be a swift witness against you, if hereafter you apostatize from God. Strange gods - Those idols which you either brought out of Egypt, or have taken in Canaan, which some of you keep contrary to God's command, whether for the preciousness of the matter, or rather for some secret inclination to superstition and idolatry. A statute - He set or established that covenant with them, that is, the people, for a statute or an ordinance, to bind themselves and their posterity unto God for ever. These words - That is, this covenant or agreement of the people with the Lord. In the book - That is, in the volume which was kept in the ark, Deut 31:9,26, whence it was taken and put into this book of Joshua: this he did for the perpetual remembrance of this great and solemn action, to lay the greater obligation upon the people to be true to their engagement; and as a witness for God, against the people, if afterward he punished them for their defection from God, to whom they had so solemnly and freely obliged themselves. Set it up - As a witness and monument of this great transaction, according to the custom of those ancient times. Possibly this agreement was written upon this stone, as was then usual. By the sanctuary - That is, near the place where the ark and tabernacle then were; for tho' they were forbidden to plant a grove of trees near unto the altar, as the Gentiles did, yet they might for a time set up an altar, or the ark, near a great tree which had been planted there before. It hath heard - It shall be as sure a witness against you, as if it had heard. This is a common figure, whereby the sense of hearing is often ascribed to the heavens and the earth, and other senseless creatures. The bones of Joseph - Joseph died two hundred years before in Egypt, but gave commandment concerning his bones, that they should not rest in a grave, 'till Israel rested in the land of promise.

Is with thee - That is, will assist thee against thine enemies. Man of valour - To whom I have given strength and courage for this end. With us - The angel had said, Peace be with Thee: but he expostulates for All: herding himself with all Israel, and admitting no comfort, but what they might be sharers in. Looked - With a settled and pleasant countenance, as a testimony of his favour, and readiness to help him. Go - Or, go now, in thy might: in the strength which thou hast already received, and dost now farther receive from me. Have not I sent thee - I do hereby give thee command and commission for this work. God's fitting men for his work, is a sure evidence of his calling them to it. My family - Heb. my thousand: for the tribes were distributed into several thousands, whereof each thousand had his peculiar governor. Is poor - That is, weak and contemptible. The least - Either for age, or fitness for so great a work. As one man - As easily, as if they were all but one man. That thou - That it is thou, an angel or messenger sent from God, that appears to me, and discourseth with me. Or, a sign of that which thou talkest with me; that is, that thou wilt by me smite the Midianites. My present - A repast for the angel, whom he thought to be a man. Set it - That thou mayest eat and refresh thyself. An ephah - The choicest part of a whole ephah; as also he brought to him the best part of a kid dressed; for a whole ephah, and a whole kid had been superfluous, and improper to provide for one man. Consumed the flesh - By which, he shewed himself to be no man that needed such provisions, but the Son of God; and by this instance of his omnipotency, gave him assurance, that he both could, and would consume the Midianites. Alas - I am an undone man: I must die, and that speedily; for that he feared, ver.23, according to the common opinion in that case. Said unto him - Perhaps by an audible voice.

Do thou unto us - Do not give us up into the hands of these cruel men, but do thou chastise us with thine own hand as much as thou pleasest; if we be not more faithful and constant to thee, than we have hitherto been. They put away - This was an evidence of the sincerity of their sorrow, that they did not only confess their sins, but also forsake them. His soul, &c. - He acted towards them, like one that felt their sufferings; he had pity upon them, quite changed his carriage towards them, and punished their enemies as sorely as if they had grieved and injured his own person. Mizpeh - That Mizpeh which was beyond Jordan.

After a time - Heb. after days; that is, either after some days: or, rather, after a year, as that word often signifies; when the flesh of the lion, (which by its strong smell is offensive to bees) was wholly consumed, and nothing was left but the bones. Bees - Settling themselves there, as they have sometimes done in a man's skull, or in a sepulchre. Came to, &c. - From whom he had turned aside for a season, ver.8. Saw him - Or, observed him, his stature, and strength, and countenance, and carriage, which were extraordinary. Brought - Partly in compliance with the custom of having bride - men; though they were not so numerous; but principally by way of caution, and as a guard put upon him under a pretence of respect and affection. Seven days - For so long marriage - feasts lasted. Sheets - Fine linen - clothes, which were used for many purposes in those parts. Changes - Suits of apparel. Seventh day - They had doubtless spoken to her before this time, but with some remissness, supposing that they should find it out; but now their time being nigh slipped, they put her under a necessity of searching it out. To take that we have - That is, to strip us of our garments. The seven days - That is, on the residue of the seven days; namely, after the third day. If ye had not &c. - If you had not employed my wife to find it out, as men plough up the ground with an heifer, thereby discovering its hidden parts; he calls her heifer, because she was joined with him in the same yoke. The spirit came - Though he had constant strength and courage; yet that was exceedingly increased upon special occasions, by the extraordinary influences of God's spirit. To Ashkelon - Either to the territory; or to the city itself, where he had both strength and courage enough to attempt what follows; and upon the doing hereof they were doubtless struck with such terror, that every one sought only to preserve himself, and none durst pursue him. His anger was kindled - For the treachery of his wife and companions. He went - Without his wife.

Bows - The strength of which they boasted. Stumbled - Or, were weak, or feeble, in body and spirit. Hired themselves out for bread - It is the same thing which is expressed both in divers metaphors in the foregoing, and following verses. Ceased - That is, ceased to be hungry. Seven - That is, many, as seven is often used. She speaks in the prophetick style, the past time, for the future; for though she had actually born but one, yet she had a confident persuasion that she should have more, which was grounded either upon some particular assurance from God; or rather upon the prayer or prediction of Eli. She - That is, Peninnah. Feeble - Either because she was now past child - bearing: or, because divers of her children, which were her strength and her glory, were dead, as the Hebrew doctors relate. Killeth - The same person whom he first killeth, or bringeth nigh unto death, he afterwards raiseth to life. Me, who was almost consumed with grief, he hath revived. The name of death both in sacred scripture, and profane writers, is often given to great Calamities. From the dunghill - From the most sordid place, and mean estate. Inherit - Not only possess it themselves, but transmit it to their posterity. Throne - That is, a glorious throne or kingdom. Pillars - The foundations of the earth, which God created, and upholds, and wherewith he sustains the earth, and all its inhabitants, as a house is supported with pillars; and therefore it is not strange if he disposeth of persons and things therein as he pleaseth. Feet - That is, the steps or paths, their counsels and actions; he will keep; that is, both uphold, that they may not fall into ruin; and direct and preserve from wandering, and from those fatal errors that wicked men daily run into. Silent - Shall be put to silence: they who used to open their mouths wide against heaven, and against the saints, shall be so confounded with the unexpected disappointment of all their hopes, and with God's glorious appearance and operations for his people, that they shall have their mouths quite stopped. Darkness - Both inward, in their own minds, not knowing what to say or do; and outward, in a stat e of deep distress.

Death admits not the relish of any earthly joy: it is then all flat and tasteless. What is it to one that is lamenting the loss of the ark What can give us pleasure, if we want God's word and ordinances Especially if we want the comfort of his gracious presence, and the light of his countenance I - chabod - Where is the glory The glory - That is, the glorious type and assurance of God's presence, the ark, which is often called God's glory, and which wast the great safeguard and ornament of Israel, which they could glory in above all other nations. The ark - This is repeated to shew, her piety, and that the public loss lay heavier upon her spirit, than her personal or domestic calamity. Chapter V

Then - While the people were together by Jabesh - gilead, wherein Samuel's great prudence and fidelity to Saul is evident. He suspended the confirmation of Saul at first, whilst the generality of the people were disaffected, and now when he had given such eminent proof of his princely virtues, and when the peoples hearts were eagerly set upon him, he takes this as the fittest season for that work. Renew - That is, confirm our former choice. Made - They owned and accepted him for their king. Chapter XII

Whenever be looked upon it, it would be a support to his faith, by reminding him of what God had already done. To Achish - A strange action; but it must be considered, that Saul's rage was so great, his power also, and diligence in hunting after him that he despaired of escaping any other way: and a desperate disease, produceth a desperate remedy. The king elect is here an exile: anointed to the crown, and yet forced to run his country. So do God's providences sometimes run counter to his promises, for the trial of our faith, and the glorifying his name in accomplishing his counsels, notwithstanding the difficulties that lie in the way. King of the land - Of Canaan. They call him king, either more generally for the governor, the most eminent captain and commander, or, as the king elect, the person designed to be king: for, by this time, the fame of Saul's rejection, and David's destination to the kingdom, was got abroad among the Israelites, and from them, probably to the Philistines. Did they not sing, &c. - And therefore consider what to do; and now our great enemy is in thy hand, be sure thou never let him go alive. Was afraid - Lest either their revenge or policy should prompt them to kill him. Perhaps he was the more apprehensive, because he wore Goliath's sword, which was probably well known at Gath. He now learned by experience what he afterward taught us, Psal 118:9. It is better to trust in the Lord, than to put any confidence in princes. Mad men - It is highly probable, Achish was aware, that this madness was counterfeit. But being desirous to preserve David, he speaks as if he thought it real. Chapter XXII

David retires to Gath, ver. 1 - 4. Achish gives him Ziklag, ver. 5 - 7. David destroys the Canaanites, ver. 8, 9. Persuades Achish he fought against Judah, ver. 10 - 12. I shall perish - But this was certainly a very great fault in David: for This proceeded from gross distrust of God's promise and providence; and that after such repeated demonstrations of God's peculiar care over him. He forsakes the place where god had settled him, chap.22:5, and given him both assurance and experience of his protection there. He voluntarily runs upon that rock, which he cursed his enemies for throwing him upon, chap.26:19, and upon many other snares and dangers, as the following history will shew; and withal, deprives the people of the Lord of those succours which he might have given them, in case of a battle. But God hereby designed to withdraw David from the Israelites, that they might fall by the hand of the Philistines, without any reproach or inconvenience to David. Sought no more for him - At their meeting Saul's heart was deeply wounded, and he had said, "Return, my son David, Be with me as in time past." Nor have we the least proof, that he would have sought for him again, with any other design. Give me a place - A prudent desire. Hereby David designed to preserve his people, both from the vices, which conversation with the Philistines would have exposed them to; and from that envy, and malice, which diversity of religion might have caused. With thee - Which is too great an honour for me, and too burdensome to thee, and may be an occasion of offence to thy people. Gave Ziklag - Not only to inhabit, but to possess it as his own. Which he did, to lay the greater obligations upon David, whom he knew so able to serve him. It was given to the tribe of Judah before, Josh 15:31, but the Philistines kept the possession of it 'till this time. And being given by them to David, it now belonged not to the tribe of Judah; but to the king of Judah, David and his heirs forever. To this day - This, and some such clauses seem to have been added, after the main substance of the several books was written.

To this day - This, and some such clauses seem to have been added, after the main substance of the several books was written. Amalekites - The remnant of those whom Saul destroyed, chap.15:3 - 9, who retired into remote and desert places. Let neither man, &c. - In that part where he came: but there were more of the Amalekites yet left in another part of that land. David - These and the following words are ambiguous, and contrary to that simplicity which became David, both as a prince, and as an eminent professor of the true religion. The fidelity of Achish to him, and the confidence he put in him, aggravates his sin in thus deceiving him, which David seems penitently to reflect on, when he prays, Remove from me the way of lying. Chapter XXVIII

Angel of God - In whom nothing is blame - worthy. The Heathens acknowledged good spirits, which also they worshipped as an inferior sort of deities, who were messengers and ministers to the supreme God; Achish had learned the title of angels, from the Israelites his neighbours, and especially from David's conversation. Rose up early - David did not then know, how necessary this was, for the relief of his own city. But God knew it well, and sent him thither accordingly. On how many occasions may he say, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter Chapter XXX

- In regard of their bodily strength, and the courage of their mind. Daughters - These he mentions; because the women then used to make songs both of triumph, and of lamentation, and, because they usually are most delighted with the ornaments of the body here following. Clothed you - This he did, because he procured them so much peace as gave them opportunity of enriching themselves: and, because he took these things as spoils from the enemies, and clothed his own people with them. Thine - Which were in thy country, and (had not thy father disinherited thee by his sins) in thy dominions. Distressed - That is, for the loss of thee. For, besides the loss of a true friend, which is inestimable; he lost him who both could, and undoubtedly would have given him a speedy, and quiet, and sure possession of the kingdom, whereas now, he met with long and troublesome interruptions. Of women - That is, that love wherewith they love their husbands, or children for their affections are usually more ardent than mens.

The destruction which thou art about to bring upon us, is an injury to Israel, and to the God of Israel. Ephraim - Probably mount Ephraim was a place in Benjamin so called, either because it was upon the borders of Ephraim or for some notable action or event of the Ephraimites in that place. His head - Which she undertook, because she knew the present temper of the citizens, and soldiers too. And it is not unlikely, that this woman might be a governness in that city. For though this office was commonly performed by men; yet women were sometimes employed in the government: as we see in Deborah, who judged Israel, Judg 4:4. Wisdom - Prudently treated with them about it, representing to them the certainty and nearness of their ruin, if they did not speedily comply with her desires, and certain deliverance if they did. Over all the host - The good success of this, and of the former expedition, under the conduct of Joab, had so fixed his interest in the army, and others of David's fastest friends, that the king could not without danger displace him.

Solomon - To whose ears this had come. Shishak - Solomon's brother - in - law, who yet might be jealous of him, or alienated from him, because he had taken so many other wives to his sister, might cast a greedy eye upon the great riches which Solomon had amassed together, and upon which, presently after Solomon's death, he laid violent hands, 2Chron 12:9. The book - In the publick records, where the lives and actions of kings were registered from time to time, so this was only a political, not a sacred book. Forty years - His reign was as long as his father's, but not his life; sin shortened his days. Slept - This expression is promiscuously used concerning good and bad; and signifies only, that they died as their fathers did. But did he repent before he died This seems to be put out of dispute by the book of Ecclesiastes; written after his fall; as is evident, not only from the unanimous testimony of the Hebrew writers, but also, from the whole strain of that book, which was written long after he had finished all his works, and after he had liberally drunk of all sorts of sensual pleasures, and sadly experienced the bitter effects of his love of women, Eccles 7:17, &c. which makes it more than probable, that as David writ Psalm 51:1 - 19. So Solomon wrote this book as a publick testimony and profession of his repentance.

Chapter XIII A prophet threatens Jeroboam's altar, and gives a sign, which immediately comes to pass, ver, 1 - 5. He restores Jeroboam's withered hand, and leaves Bethel, ver. 6 - 10. The old prophet deceives and entertains him, ver. 11 - 19. He is threatened with death, ver. 20 - 23. Slain by a lion and buried, ver. 24 - 32. Jeroboam is hardened in his idolatry, ver. 33, 34. Man of God - An holy prophet. By the word, &c. - By Divine inspiration and command. The altar - And consequently, against all that worship. O altar - He directs his speech to the altar, because the following signs were wrought upon it. Josiah - Which being done above three hundred years after this prophecy, plainly shews the absolute certainty of God's providence; and fore - knowledge even in the most contingent things. For this was in itself uncertain, and wholly depended upon man's will, both as to the having of a child, and as to the giving it this name. Therefore God can certainly and effectually over - rule man's will which way he pleaseth; or else it was possible, that this prediction should have been false; which is blasphemous to imagine. The priests - The bones of the priests, 2Kings 23:15,16, whereby the altar should be defiled. How bold was the man, that durst attack the king in his pride, and interrupt the solemnity he was proud of Whoever is sent on God's errand, must not fear the faces of men. It was above three hundred and fifty years ere this prophecy was fulfilled. Yet it is spoken of as sure and nigh at hand. For a thousand years are with God as one day. Gave a sign - That is, he then wrought a miracle, to assure them of the truth of his prophecy. Put forth, &c. - To point out the man whom he would have the people lay hands on. The altar - Where it was employed in offering something upon it. Dried up - Or, withered, the muscles and sinews, the instruments of motion, shrunk up. This God did, to chastise Jeroboam for offering violence to the Lord's prophet: to secure the prophet against farther violence: and, that in this example God might shew, how highly he resents the injuries done to his ministers, for the faithful discharge of their office.

He found, &c. - Here was a concurrence of miracles: that the ass did not run away from the lion, according to his nature, but boldly stood still, as reserving himself to carry the prophet to his burial; that the lion did not devour its prey, nor yet go away when he had done his work, but stood still, partly to preserve the carcase of the prophet from other wild beasts or fowls, partly, as an evidence that the prophet's death was not casual, nor the effect of a lion's ravenous disposition, but of God's singular and just judgment; and consequently, that his prediction was divine, and should be infallibly accomplished in its proper time; and partly, as a token of God's favour to the deceased prophet, of whose very carcase he took such special care: thereby signifying, that although for wise and just reasons he thought fit to take away his life, yet his remains was precious to him. His grave - So that threatening, ver.22, was fulfilled; and withal, the memory of his prophecy was revived and preserved among them, and his very carcase resting there, might be a witness of their madness and desperate wickedness, in continuing in their abominable idolatry, after such an assurance of the dreadful effects of it. They - The old prophet and his sons, and others, whom common humanity taught to lament the untimely death of so worthy a person. Alas, &c. - Which was an usual form of expression in funeral - lamentations. When I am dead, &c - Tho' he was a lying prophet, yet he desired to die the death of a true prophet. Gather not my Soul with the sinners of Beth - el, but with this man of God: Because what he cried against the altar of Beth - el, shall surely come to pass. Thus by the mouth of two witnesses was it established, if possible to convince Jeroboam. Samaria - That is, of the kingdom of Samaria; as it was called, though not when this fact was done, yet before these books were written. Samaria was properly this name of one city, chap.21:1, but from hence the whole kingdom of Israel was so called. After this - That is, after all these things: the singular number put for the plural; after so many, and evident, and successive miracles.

Chapter XIV Jeroboam sends to the prophet, to enquire concerning his sick son, ver. 1 - 6. The destruction of Jeroboam's household told, ver. 7 - 16. The death of his child, ver. 17, 18. The conclusion of his reign, ver. 19, 20. The declension of Rehoboam's house and kingdom, ver. 21 - 28. The conclusion of his reign, ver. 28 - 31. At that time - Presently after the things described in the former chapter; which, though related in the beginning of his reign, yet might be done a good while after it, and so Ahijah the prophet might be very old, as he is described to be ver.4. It is probable he was his eldest son. His wife - Because she might without suspicion enquire concerning her own child; and because she would enquire exactly, and diligently, and faithfully acquaint him with the truth. Disguise - Change thy habit, and voice, and go like a private and obscure person. This caution proceeded: first, from the pride of his heart, which made him loth to confess his folly in worshipping such helpless idols, and to give glory to the God whom he had forsaken. Secondly, from jealousy and suspicion, lest the prophet knowing this, should either give her no answer, or make it worse than indeed it was. Thirdly, from policy, lest his people should by his example be drawn to forsake the calves, and to return to the God of Judah. And take - A present, after the manner, but mean, as became an ordinary country woman, which she personated. It had been more pious to enquire, why God contended with him. Thou wife - By which discovery he both reproves their folly, who thought to conceal themselves from God, and withal gives her assurance of the truth, and certainty of that message which he was to deliver. David - Who though he fell into some sins, yet, first, he constantly persevered in the true worship of God; from which thou art revolted. Secondly, he heartily repented of, and turned from all his sins whereas thou art obstinate and incorrigible. Above all - Above all the former kings of my people, as Saul, and Solomon, and Rehoboam.

Probably this was he that had reproved him, for letting Ben - hadad go: And for that, had lain in prison three years. But this did not make him less confident, or less faithful in delivering his message. Said - What answer God shall put in to my mouth. Bravely resolved! And as became one who had an eye to a greater king than either of these. Go - Using the very words of the false prophets, in way of derision. Micaiah's meaning is plainly this, because thou dost not seek to know the truth, but only to please thyself, go to the battle, as all thy prophets advise thee, and try the truth of their prediction by thy own experience. I saw - In the spirit, or in a vision. The hills - Upon the mountains of Gilead, nigh Ramoth, where they lay encamped by Ahab's order. As sheep - As people who have lost their king. Return - Discharged from the war: which was fulfilled, ver.26. Evil - Nay, but what evil was it, to tell him, what would be the event, if he proceeded in his expedition, while it was in his own power, whether he would proceed, or no The greatest kindness we can do to one that is walking in a dangerous way, is to tell him of his danger. He said - I will give thee a distinct and true account of the whole matter, in God's name and presence. I saw - By the eyes of my mind: for he could not see the Lord with bodily eyes. The Host - The angels, both good and bad, the one possibly on his right, the other on his left hand. Nor is it strange that the devils are called the host of heaven; if you consider, first, that their original seat was in heaven. Secondly, that the name of heaven is often given to all that part of the world which is above the earth, and among the rest, to the air, and where the devil's residence and dominion lies, Eph 2:2, and that both Michael and his angels, and the Dragon and his angels, are said to be, and to wage war in heaven, Rev 12:7, either the air, or the church.

Secondly, that the name of heaven is often given to all that part of the world which is above the earth, and among the rest, to the air, and where the devil's residence and dominion lies, Eph 2:2, and that both Michael and his angels, and the Dragon and his angels, are said to be, and to wage war in heaven, Rev 12:7, either the air, or the church. Who shall - This is not to be grossly understood, as if God were at a loss to find out an expedient to accomplish his own will; but only to bring down divine things to our shallow capacities, and to express the various means which God hath to execute his own designs. A spirit - An evil spirit came, and presented himself before the throne. He said - I will inspire a lie into the minds and mouths of his prophets. Thou shalt - I will give them up into thy hands, and leave them to their own ignorance and wickedness. Go - This is not a command, but only a permission. Zedekiah - The chief of the false prophets, who was much in the king's favour. Which way - In what manner went it Forasmuch as I and my brethren have consulted the Lord, and have the same spirit which thou pretendest to have. Hide thyself - Probably he went with Ahab to the battle, after which he was glad to shelter himself where he could. Bread, &c. - With a very course and sparing diet, whereby he may be only supported to endure his torment. Save only - This he ordered, truly supposing this to be the best way to put an end to the war: and by the providence of God, which disposeth the hearts of kings as he pleaseth; and inclined them to this course, that they might, though ignorantly, accomplish his counsel. Perhaps Ben - hadad only designed to have taken him prisoner, that he might now give him as honourable a treatment, as he had formerly received from him. The joints - Where the several parts of his armour were joined together. The only place about him where this arrow of death could find entrance. No armour is proof against the darts of divine vengeance. Case the criminal in steel, and it is all one: he that made him, can make his sword approach him.

Man of God - So he calls him by way of scorn. Come - The king commands thee to come to him: which if thou refuseth, I am to carry thee by force. Let fire, &c. - Elijah did this, not to secure himself, he could have done that some other way: nor to revenge himself, for it was not his own cause that he acted in: but to prove his mission, and to reveal the wrath of God from heaven against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. And said - He discovers more petulancy than the former; and shews, how little he was moved by the former example. Besought - Expressing both reverence to his person, and a dread of God's judgments. There is nothing to be got by contending with God: if we would prevail with him, it must be by supplication. And those are wise who learn submission from the fatal consequences of obstinacy in others. He said - To his very face. Nor durst the king lay hands upon him, being daunted with the prophet's presence, and confidence; and affrighted by the late dreadful evidence of his power with God. Jehoram - His brother. The son of Jehoshaphat - Jehoshaphat, in his seventeenth year, when he went to Ahab, and with him to Ramoth - Gilead, appointed his son Jehoram his vice - roy, and (in case of his death) his successor. In the second year from that time, when Jehoram was thus made vice - king in his father's stead; this Jehoram, Ahab's son, began to reign: and in the fifth year of the reign of this Jehoram son of Ahab, which was about the twenty - fourth year of Jehoshaphat's reign, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat was made king of Judah, together with his father.

- I have so disposed of things by my providence, that thou shouldest be a great and victorious prince, and that thou shouldest be so successful as thou hast hitherto been, first against the kingdom of Israel, and now against Judah. Therefore - Because I had armed thee with my commission and strength, and taken away their spirit and courage. I know - Though thou dost not know me, yet I throughly know thee, and all thy designs and actions, all thy secret contrivances in the place of thy abode, in thy own kingdom and court; and the execution of thy designs abroad, what thou intendest in thy going out, and with what farther thoughts thou comest in, or returnest to thy own land. My hook, &c. - What a comfort is it, that God has a hook in the nose and a bridle in the jaws of all his and our enemies A sign - Of the certain accomplishment of the promises here made: that God will not only preserve the city from his present fury, but also, bless his people with a durable prosperity, ver.30,31. The third year - This was an excellent sign; especially, considering the waste and havock which the Assyrians had made in the land; and that the Jews had been forced to retire into their strong hold, and consequently to neglect their tilling, and sowing, and reaping; and yet this year they should have sufficient provision from those fruits of the earth which the Assyrians left; and the second year, which was the year of release, in which they might neither sow, nor reap, from such fruits as the earth brought forth of its own accord; and so in the third year. And eat - You shall not sow, and another reap, as lately you did; but you shall enjoy the fruit of your own labours. The remnant, &c. - They shall be well fixt and provided for themselves, and then do good to others. Go forth - That handful of Jews who were now gathered together, and shut up in Jerusalem, shall go out of their several habitations, and by my singular blessing increase exceedingly.

This miracle was noted by the Babylonians, who, having understood that it was done for Hezekiah's sake, sent to enquire into the truth and manner of it, 2Chron 32:31. Of Ahaz - Which Ahaz had made in the king's palace. This dial he mentions, because the truth of the miracle might be best and soonest discovered there, this dial possibly being visible out of the king's chamber, and the degrees being most distinct and conspicuous in it. Berodach - baladan - He seems to have been the king of Assyria's vice - roy in Babylon, and upon that terrible slaughter in the Assyrian host, and the death of Sennacherib, and the differences among his sons, to have usurped absolute sovereignty over Babylon. And either himself or his son destroyed the Assyrian monarchy, and translated the empire to Babylon. Sent - Partly, for the reasons mentioned, 2Chron 32:31, and partly, to assure himself of the assistance of Hezekiah against the Assyrians, their common enemy. His treasures - For though his country had lately been harassed by the Assyrians, yet he had reserved all his treasures and precious things, which he and his fathers had gathered in Jerusalem. Besides, he had considerable spoils out of the Assyrian camp. Also he had many presents sent to him, 2Chron 32:23. Shewed - Which he did through pride of heart, 2Chron 32:25,26, being lifted up by the great honour which God had done him, in working such glorious miracles for his sake, and by the great respects rendered to him from divers princes, and now by this great Babylonian monarch. So hard a matter is it even for a good man to be high and humble. Behold - This judgment is denounced against him for his pride; for his ingratitude, whereby he took that honour to himself which he should have given entirely to God; and for his carnal confidence in that league which he had now made with the king of Babylon, by which, it is probable, he thought his mountain to be so strong, that it could not be removed. Thy sons - Of thy grand - children. Eunuchs - They shall be servants to that heathen monarch, whereby both their bodies will be subject to slavery, and their souls exposed to the peril of idolatry, and all sorts of wickedness. Good is, &c.

Blood - The blood of those prophets and righteous men who either reproved his sinful practices, or refused to comply with his wicked commands. His sin - His idolatry, which is called sin, by way of eminency. The tradition of the Jews is, that he caused Isaiah in particular to be sawn asunder. Garden - Not in the sepulchre of the kings; probably, by his own choice and command, as a lasting testimony of his sincere repentance and abhorrence of himself for his former crime. He walked, &c. - He revived that idolatry which Manasseh in the latter end of his reign had put down. Those who set bad examples, if they repent themselves, cannot be sure that they whom their example has drawn into sin will repent. It is often otherwise.

Chapter IX The chief of Judah, Benjamin. Ephraim and Manasseh, who returned from captivity and dwelt at Jerusalem, ver. 1 - 9. The priests, ver. 10 - 13. The Levites, ver. 14 - 16. Their various offices in the temple, ver. 17 - 34. The family of Saul, ver. 35 - 44. The book - In the publick records, wherein there was an account of that kingdom, and of the several families in it. The first - After the return from Babylon. Dwelt - That took possession of their own lands and cities, which had been formerly allotted them; but of late years had been taken from them for their sins, and possessed by other people. Israelites - The common people of Judah and Israel, called here by the general name of Israelites, which was given them before that unhappy division of the kingdoms, and now is restored to them when the Israelites are united with the Jews in one and the same commonwealth, that so all the names and signs of their former division might be blotted out. And though the generality of the ten tribes were yet in captivity, yet divers of them upon Cyrus's general proclamation, associated themselves, and returned with those of Judah and Benjamin. Levites - These took possession of the cities belonging to them, as they had need and opportunity. Nethinims - A certain order of men, either Gibeonites or others joined with them, devoted to the service of God, and of his house, and of the priests and Levites; who, that they might attend upon their work without distraction, had certain places and possessions given to them; which they are now said to repossess. Ammihud - That there is so great a diversity of names between this catalogue and that of Nehem 11:4 - 36, may be ascribed to two causes: to the custom of the Hebrews, who used frequently to give several names to one person: and, to the change of times; for here they are named who came up at the first return but many of those in Nehemiah might be such as returned afterward, and came and dwelt either instead of the persons here named, or with them.

The times - They understood public affairs, the temper of the nation, and the tendencies of the present events. And they shewed their wisdom at this time; for as they had adhered to Saul while he lived, as knowing the time was not yet come for David to take possession of the kingdom: and as they could not join David, while Abner lived, and had the command of the other tribes wherewith they were encompassed, so as soon as he was dead, and they had opportunity to declare themselves, they owned David for their king. Double heart - They were sincerely loyal, and did not dissemble with David, pretending to be for him, while in their hearts they favoured Saul's family. And none had any separate interests, but all were for the public good.

Chapter XII Rehoboam forsaking God is oppressed by Shishak, ver. 1 - 4. He humbles himself, and is preserved in his kingdom, but spoiled of his treasures, ver. 6 - 12. His character and death, ver. 13 - 16. And all Israel - So called, because they forsook God, as Israel had done. Fifth year - Presently after the apostacy of the king and people, which was in the fourth year. Lubims - A people of Africk bordering upon Egypt. Sukkiims - A people living in tents, as the word signifies; and such there were not far from Egypt, both in Africk and in Arabia. Ethiopians - Either those beyond Egypt, or the Arabians. Some deliverance - I will give some stop to the course of my wrath, which was ready to be poured forth upon them to their utter destruction. Those who acknowledge God is righteous in afflicting them, shall find him gracious. May know - That they may experimentally know the difference between my yoke and the yoke of a foreign and idolatrous prince. Went well - The began to recruity themselves, and regain some degree of their former prosperity. Did evil - Or, settled not, although he humbled himself, for a season, yet he quickly relapsed into sin, because his heart was not right with God.

Chapter V Zerubbabel encouraged by Haggai and Zechariah, sets the work forward again, ver. 1, 2. Their adversaries oppose them again, ver. 3 - 5. Write to Darius, ver. 6 - 17. The son - His grand - child; for he was the son of Baraciah. Prophesied - Commanding them from God to return to building the temple, with a promise of his favour and assistance. Helping - Encouraging the people to work by their presence, and assurance of success. It is supposed, the work had stopt about fifteen years. The first chapter of Haggai is the best comment on these two verses. Shethar - boznai - Not Rehum and Shimshai, &c. who were either dead, or removed from their office by Darius. We - Jews. Accordingly - According to what they asked. That made this building - That were the undertakers and encouragers of it. Great God - And indeed, thus far the greater part of the Samaritans agreed with them. Now therefore. &c. - If the case had been so fairly stated to Artaxerxes, he would hardly have hindered the work. The people of God could not be persecuted, if they were not belied.

King's forest - Of the forest of Lebanon, famous for choice trees. Palace - Of the king's palace, which was adjoining to the house of God. Enter - That I shall build to dwell in while I am there. Horonite - So called either, from the place of his birth or rule, which is supposed to be Horonaim, an eminent city of Moab. The servant - So called probably from the condition from which he was advanced to his present power and dignity: which also may be mentioned as one reason why he now carried himself so insolently, it being usual for persons suddenly raised from a low state, so to demean themselves. Night - Concealing both his intentions as long as he could, knowing that the life of his business lay in secrecy and expedition. Beast - To prevent noise. I went - The footmen who accompanied him directing and leading him in the way. His design was to go round the city, to observe the compass and condition of the walls and gates, that he might make sufficient provisions for the work. No place - The way being obstructed with heaps of rubbish. That did - Or, were to do, whom he intended to employ in it. Rise up - Let us do it with vigour, and diligence, and resolution, as those that are determined to go through with it. Their hands - Their own and one anothers. No portion - You have no authority over us, nor interest in our church and state, but are aliens from the common - wealth of Israel. Memorial - No testimony, or monument, either of your relation to us by birth or religion, or of your kindness to us, or to this place.

- God's usual method is, first to humble, and then to exalt. And he never makes a wound too great, too deep for his own cure. Deliver - If thou seekest to him by prayer and repentance. Here he applies himself to Job directly. Six - Manifold and repeated. Touch - So as to destroy thee. Thou shalt have a good issue out of all thy troubles, though they are both great and many. He shall - These things he utters with more confidence, because the rewards or punishments of this life, were more constantly distributed to men in the Old Testament according to their good or bad behaviour, than they are now: and because it was his opinion, that great afflictions were the certain evidences of wickedness; and consequently, that great deliverances would infallibly follow upon true repentance. Laugh - With a laughter of joy and triumph, arising from a just security and confidence in God's watchful and gracious providence. League - Thou shalt be free from annoyance thereby, as if they had made an inviolable league with thee. This is a bold metaphor, but such as are frequent both in scripture and other authors. This is an addition to the former privilege; they shall not hurt thee, ver.22, nay, they shall befriend thee, as being at peace with thee. Our covenant with God is a covenant with all the creatures, that they shall do us no hurt, but serve and be ready to do us good. Know - By certain experience. Know - By assurance from God's promises, and the impressions of his Spirit; and by experience in due time. Full age - In a mature and old, but vigorous age, as the word implies. It is a great blessing, to live to a full age, and not to have the number of our years cut short. Much more, to be willing to die, to come chearfully to the grave: and to die seasonably, just in the bed - time, when our souls are ripe for God. Searched - This is no rash or hasty conceit, but what both I and my brethren have learned by deep consideration, long experience, and diligent observation. Know thou - Know it for thyself; (So the word is) with application to thy own case. That which we thus hear and know for ourselves, we hear and know for our good.

Thy comfort, like the morning - light shall shine brighter and brighter, until the perfect day. Secure - Thy mind shall be quiet and free from terrors, because thou shalt have a firm and well - grounded confidence in God. Dig - Either to fix thy tents, which after the manner of the Arabians were removed from place to place: or to plough the ground, as he had done, chap.1:14, or to make a fence about thy dwelling. Fail - Either with grief and tears for their sore calamities: or with long looking for what they shall never attain. Their hope - They shall never obtain deliverance out of their distresses, but shall perish in them. Ghost - Shall be as vain and desperate as the hope of life is in a man, when he is at the very point of death.

Chapter XIV Man's life is but short, sorrowful, and sinful; on which consideration he pleads for mercy, ver, 1 - 6. Other creatures revive, but man does not, ver. 7 - 12. Various wishes and complaints, ver. 13 - 22. Man - A weak creature, and withal corrupt and sinful, and of that sex by which sin and all other calamity was brought into the world. Flower - The flower is fading, and all its beauty soon withers and is gone. The shadow is fleeting, and its very being will soon be lost in the shadows of night. Of neither do we make any account, in neither do we put any confidence. Not one - No man. This is the prerogative of thy grace, which therefore I humbly implore. Determined - Limited to a certain period. With thee - In thy power and disposal. Thou hast appointed a certain end of his days, beyond which he cannot prolong his life. Turn - Withdraw thine afflicting hand from him, that he may have some present ease. 'Till - He come to the period of his life, which thou hast allotted to him, as a man appoints a set time to an hired servant. Die - To outward appearance. Scent - By means of water. Scent or smell, is figuratively ascribed to a tree. Man - Two words are here used for man. Geber, a mighty man, tho' mighty, dies. Adam, a man of earth, returns to it. Before death, he is dying daily, continually wasting away. In death, he giveth up the ghost, the spirit returns to God that gave it. After death, where is he Not where he was: his place knows him no more. But is he nowhere Yes, he is gone to the world of spirits, gone into eternity, gone, never to return to this world! As - So it is with man. Or thus, as when the waters fail from the sea, when the sea forsakes the place into which it used to flow, the river which was fed by it, decayeth and drieth up without all hopes of recovery. Lieth - In his bed, the grave. 'Till - Until the time of the general resurrection, when these visible heavens shall pass away. The grave - The grave is not only a resting - place, but an hiding - place to the children of God.

Chapter XXXII Some account of Elihu, and his sentiments concerning the dispute between Job and his friends, ver. 1 - 5. He excuses his own youth, ver. 6 - 10. and pleads, that he had heard all they had to say, ver. 11 - 13. That he had something new to offer, ver. 14 - 17. Could not refrain from speaking, ver. 18 - 20. And would speak impartially, ver. 21, 22. Because - So they said: but they could not answer him. The Buzite - Of the posterity of Buz, Nahor's son, Gen 22:21. Ram - Or, of Aram; for Ram and Aram are used promiscuously; compare 2Kings 8:28 2Chron 22:5. His pedigree is thus particularly described, partly for his honour, as being both a wise and good man, and principally to evidence the truth of this history. He justified - Himself not without reflection upon God, as dealing severely with him, he took more care to maintain his own innocency, than God's glory. The word Elihu signifies, my God is he. They had all tried in vain to convince Job: but my God is he who both can and will do it. No answer - To Job's arguments as to the main cause. Condemned - As a bad man. 'Till Job - And his three friends. Afraid - Of being thought forward and presumptuous. Spirit - The spirit of God. Giveth - To whom he pleaseth. Judgment - What is just and right. Convinced - By solid and satisfactory answers. Left - God thus left you to your own weakness, lest you should ascribe the conquering or silencing of Job to your own wisdom. God - This is alleged by Elihu, in the person of Job's three friends; the sense is, the judgments which are upon Job, have not been brought upon him by man originally, but by the hand of God, for his gross, though secret sins: but, saith Elihu, this argument doth not satisfy me, and therefore bear with me if I seek for better. Bottles - Bottles of new wine. I know not - The more closely we eye the majesty of God as our maker, the more we dread his wrath and justice, the less danger shall we be in of a sinful fearing or flattering of men.

Since - Since thou wast born: this work was done long before thou wast born. To know - To observe the punctual time when, and the point of the heavens where it should arise; which varies every day. That - That this morning light should in a moment spread itself, from one end of the hemisphere to the other. Shaken - From the face of the earth. And this effect the morning - light hath upon the wicked, because it discovers them, whereas darkness hides them; and because it brings them to condign punishment, the morning being the usual time for executing judgment. It - The earth. Turned - Is changed in its appearance. By the seal - The seal makes a beautiful impression upon the clay, which in itself hath no form, or comeliness. So the earth, which in the darkness of night lies like a confused heap without either form or beauty, when the light arises and shines upon it, appears in excellent order and glory. They - The men and things of the earth, whether natural, as living creatures, herbs and trees; or artificial, as houses or other buildings. Stand - Present themselves to our view. Garment - Wherewith the earth is in a manner clothed and adorned. Withheld - That light which enjoyed by others is withholden from them, either by their own choice, because they chuse darkness rather than light; or by the judgment of God, or the magistrate, by whom they are cut off from the light of the living. Arms - Their great strength which they used to the oppression of others. Springs - Heb. the tears; the several springs out of which the waters of the sea flow as tears do from the eyes. Walked - Hast thou found out the utmost depth of the sea, which in divers places could never be reached by the wisest mariner And how then canst thou fathom the depths of my counsels Death - Hast thou seen, or dost thou know the place and state of the dead; the depths and bowels of that earth in which the generality of dead men are buried. Death is a grand secret We know not when or by what means we shall be brought to death: by what road we must go the way, whence we shall not return.

Death is a grand secret We know not when or by what means we shall be brought to death: by what road we must go the way, whence we shall not return. We cannot describe what death is; how the knot is untied between soul and body, or how the spirit goes "To be we know not what, and live we know not how." With what dreadful curiosity does the soul launch out into an untried abyss We have no correspondence with separate souls, nor any acquaintance with their state. It is an unknown, undiscovered region, to which they are removed. While we are here in a world of sense, we speak of the world of spirits, as blind men do of colours, and when we remove thither, shall be amazed to find how much we were mistaken. Breadth - The whole compass and all the parts of it Dwelleth - Hath its constant and settled abode. Whether goes the sun when it departs from this hemisphere Where is the tabernacle and the chamber in which he is supposed to rest And seeing there was a time when there was nothing but gross darkness upon the face of the earth, what way came light into the world Which was the place where light dwelt at that time, and whence was it fetched And whence came that orderly constitution and constant succession of light and darkness Was this thy work Or wast thou privy to it, or a counsellor, or assistant in it Take it - Bring or lead it: and this it refers principally to the light, and to darkness, as the consequent of the other. Bound - Its whole course from the place of its abode whence it is supposed to come, to the end of its journey. Know - Where thou mayst find it, and whence thou mayst fetch it. Treasures - Dost thou know where I have laid up those vast quantities of snow and hail which I draw forth when I see fit Trouble - When I intend to bring trouble upon any people for their sins. Distributed - In the air, and upon the face of the earth. This is variously distributed in the world, shining in one place and time, when it doth not shine in another, or for a longer time, or with greater brightness and power than it doth in another.

Restore - He speaks not of that restitution which the law required, but of that which either the wronged person might force the thief to make, or which the thief would willingly give rather than be exposed to public shame. Rage - It enflames a man with rage. In the day - When he hath an opportunity to avenge himself. Chapter VII An exhortation to cleave to wisdom, as a preservative from strange women, ver. 1 - 5. The snares they lay for unwary young men, ver. 6 - 23. A serious caution against coming near them, ver. 24 - 37. Live - Thou shalt live. Eye - With all possible care and diligence. Bind them - As a ring which is continually in a man's eye. And call - Acquaint and delight thyself with her. Passing - Idle and careless, near the corner of the street in which her house stood. Without - Without the door of her house. Corner - Of the streets, where she might either conceal or discover herself, as she saw fit. Offerings - I have paid my peace - offerings which I had vowed. Whereby she signifies, that she had plentiful provisions at her house for his entertainment. For the peace - offerings were to be of the best flesh, Lev 22:21, and a considerable part of these offerings fell to the offerer's share. Hath taken - Which is an evidence that he designs to stay a considerable time. At the day - So that we need not fear any surprise. As an ox - Going to it securely, as if it were going to a good pasture. His liver - His vital parts, 'till his life be lost.

Three things are to be observed concerning this book. The author; who was Solomon, as is manifest both from the common consent of Jewish and Christian writers, and from the express words of the first verse. That he wrote it in his old age, is more than probable from divers passages in it, as, that he did it after his buildings, chap. 2:4, which yet took up twenty years of his life, 1Kings 9:10, and after some considerable enjoyment of them, and planting of gardens, and orchards, and reaping the fruit of them, chap. 2:5,6, and after long and much consideration and experience of all those methods in which men expect to find happiness, chap. 7:27, &c. So this book was written by him, as a publick testimony of his repentance and detestation of those wicked courses to which he had addicted himself: wherein he followed the example of his father David, who, after his sad fall, penned the fifty - first psalm. And the truth of this opinion may be confirmed by that expression, 2Chron 11:17. They walked in the way of David and Solomon; that is, wherein they walked, both before their falls, and after their repentance. The method of it. For whereas there are some passages in it which seem impious; it must be considered, that it is in part dramatical; that Solomon speaks most things in his own name, but some things in the names of ungodly men, as is undeniably manifest both front the scope and design of the book, as it is expressed both in the beginning and in the conclusion of it, and from his serious and large disputation against those wicked principles and courses. And this way of writing is not unusual among both sacred and profane writers. The design of it; which is, to describe man's true happiness, and the way leading to it. This he does both negatively, proving, that it is not to be found either in secular wisdom, or in sensual pleasures, or in worldly greatness and glory, or in abundance of riches, or in a vain profession of religion: and positively, shewing, that it is to be had only in the fear of God and obedience to his laws, which alone can give a man a chearful enjoyment of his present comforts, and an assurance of his everlasting happiness.

Shall lie - This phrase may denote the churches intimate union with, and hearty affection to Christ. Camphire - We are not concerned to know exactly what this was; it being confessed, that it was some grateful plant, and that it sets forth that great delight which the church hath in the enjoyment of Christ. Engedi - A pleasant and well - watered place in the tribe of Judah, where there were many pleasant plants. Behold - This is the speech of Christ. The words are doubled to manifest his fervent affection for her. Doves eyes - Which are mild and harmless, chaste and faithful. And by the eyes he seems to design both her outward behaviour, and the inward disposition of her mind. Behold - The church here again speaks, and retorts Christ's words; thou, and thou only art fair indeed. Pleasant - As thou art beautiful in thyself, so thou art amiable and pleasant in thy condescention to me. Bed - This seems to denote the place where the church enjoys sweet fellowship with Christ, by his spirit accompanying his ordinances. Green - Is pleasant, as that colour to the eye. Cedar - Not only strong, but also fragrant and delightful. Cypress - Which also was strong and fragrant, and therefore suits well with cedar.

Devoured - This hath been the fruit of our labour. Lie down - An expression to set forth the greatness of their repentance and sorrow in great perplexity, not knowing what to do, throws himself down upon his couch or bed.

Weary - Though the people should labour to quench this fire, or to rebuild this city, yet it would be all lost labour. In the fourth year - This circumstance lets us know that this prophecy was many years before Babylon was destroyed; for it was seven years before Jerusalem was taken; so as it must be above sixty years before it was fulfilled in the first degree. Shalt read - Probably to the Jews, that were in Babylon. Shalt say - Thou shalt testify that thou believest what thou hast read. Weary - With that weight of judgment which shall be upon them. The words - The prophetical words of Jeremiah; for the matter of the next chapter is historical, and the book of Lamentations is not prophetical.

Chapter II Ezekiel is commissioned to prophesy to the Jewish captives, ver. 1 - 5. Is cautioned not to be afraid of them, ver. 6. Has words put into his mouth, signified by the vision of a roll, which he is ordered to eat, ver. 7 - 10. And - He that sat upon the throne, Jesus Christ. Son of man - A phrase which is ninety - five times, at least, used in this prophecy to keep him humble who had such great revelations. Stand - Arise, fear not. And with this command God sent forth a power enabling him to rise and stand. The spirit - The same spirit which actuated the living creatures. Shall know - They that obey shall know by the good I will do them, those that will not, by the evil which I will bring upon them. Words - Accusations, threats, or whatever else a malicious heart can suggest to the tongue. Briars - Which usually run up among thorns, are a very fit emblem of the frowardness and keenness of sinners against God and his prophet. Scorpious - Malicious, revengeful men. They that will do any thing to purpose in the service of God, must not fear the faces of men. Hear - Obey. Open - This was done only in a vision. Roll - Their books were not like ours, but written in parchment and in the length of it, and so one piece fastened to another, 'till the whole would contain what was to be written, and then it was wrapped or rolled about a round piece of wood, fashioned for that purpose. And - The person, who held out his hand. Spread - Unrolled it. Within &c. - On both sides, on that side which was inward when rolled, and on that side also that was outward.

Chapter XII The prophet by removing his stuff, and quitting his lodgings is a sign of Zedekiah's flight out of Jerusalem, ver. 1 - 16. By eating his meat with trembling, he is a sign, to set forth the famine and consternation in the city, ver. 17 - 20. An assurance that these things shall be fulfilled, ver. 21 - 28. Eyes to see - They have capacity, if they would, to understand, but they will not understand, what thou speakest. Stuff - Vessels or instruments, wherein thou mayest put what is portable. In their sight - Before 'tis quite night, that they, who should learn by this sign, may see and consider it. Dig - Come not through the door, but as one who knows there is a guard upon the door, get to some back part of thy house, and dig there thyself, either to make the greater haste, or to keep all secret; for all will be little enough for them that must act what thou dost represent. Carry out - Through the hole thou hast dug. Bare it - In testimony of the servitude they shall be reduced to, who then must do what servants or beasts were wont to be employed in. Cover thy face - As unwilling to be seen or known. For - I have set thee for a sign to them, and thou shalt tell them the meaning of these things in due time. I brought forth - Here is a transposing of his actions, and rehearsal of that in the first place, which was acted in the second place. Say - Though they enquire not, yet tell them what I mean hereby, that this prophecy is a burden which the kingdom shall groan under. The prince - Zedekiah. I am your sign - My person is the emblem of yours, and my actions of that you shall do. And the like shall be done to you, O inhabitants of Jerusalem. We cannot say concerning our dwelling place, that it is our resting place. For how far we may be tossed from it before we die, we cannot foresee. The prince - Zedekiah. Shall bear - Disguised, as a servant, in hope to conceal himself, chuses the twilight as the time that would best favour his design.

Chapter XXV A prophesy against the Ammonites, ver. 1 - 7. The Moabites, ver. 8 - 11. The Edomites, ver. 12 - 14. And the Philistines, ver. 15 - 17. Aha - When thou shouldest have pitied, thou didst proudly insult over my people. The men of the east - The Arabians, associates of Nebuchadnezzar, who recompensed their service, with giving them this country when it was conquered, as it was five years after the desolation of Jerusalem. Rabbah - The royal city, called since Philadelphia from the king of Egypt who built it. The Ammonites - The land they dwelt in. Know - Thus God will bring those that were strangers to him into an acquaintance with him, and it will be a blessed effect of their calamities. How much better is it, to be poor and know God, than to be rich, and ignorant of him Seir - The seed of Esau, the Edomites. Seir was the mountain where they first planted themselves. Is like - Are no more a select people than others. The side - That part of his country which was best fortified. Bethjeshimoth - An ancient city; it was a fortress toward the desert, which watched lest any should make an inroad on the country. With the Ammonites - As I have given Ammon, so I will with them give Moab to the Chaldeans, who will give it to the Arabians. Teman - A country in the southern coast of Edom. Dedan - Adjoining to Edom. It - Israel. The Cherethim - The bowmen, the strength of Philistia. The remnant - Who had escaped the sword of Samuel, David, Hezekiah, and of Psammetichus king of Egypt.

Chapter XXXIX A prediction of the utter destruction of Gog and Magog, ver. 1 - 7. An illustration of the vastness of that destruction, ver. 8 - 22. God's mercy to his people, ver. 23 - 29. The sixth part - I will leave in thy country but one in six. Thy bow - What is said of the bow rendered useless, is to be understood of all other weapons of war; this is one kind, the bow, being most in use with the Scythians, is mentioned for all the rest. It is come - As sure as if already come. The day - That notable day of recompences against the last great enemies of the church. The weapons - The warlike provision, instruments, engines, carriages and wagons. Shall burn - It may be wondered why they burn these weapons, which might be of use to them for defence; but it was done in testimony that God was their defence, on whom only they relied. With fire - In such a country where the need of fire is much less than with us, it will not seem incredible, that the warlike utensils of so numerous an army might be enough to furnish them with fuel for many years. Gog - And to many of those with him; but many were given to the birds and beasts to be devoured. Graves - Gog came to take possession; and so he shall, but not as he purposed and hoped. He shall possess his house of darkness in that land which he invaded. The valley of the passengers - So called from the frequent travels of passengers through it from Egypt and Arabia Felix, into the more northern parts, and from these again into Egypt and Arabia. The sea - The Dead Sea. Hamon Gog - That is, the multitude of Gog. Glorified - The day of my being glorified shall be a renown to Israel. They - The rulers of Israel. Sever - Chuse out men who shall make it their work. Passing - To go up and down over the whole land; for many of Gog's wounded, flying soldiers, died in thickets, and corners into which they crept. The passengers - Whose assistance they would desire of courtesy. Remain - Unburied by the public labour of the house of Israel during the seven months.

Their drink - Their wine is corrupt and hurtful. Continually - Without ceasing from Jeroboam's time to this day. Give ye - Beside there is shameful oppression and bribery among them. The wind - The whirlwind of wrath from God hath seized this old adulteress, and carried some of her children away already. They shall be ashamed - What they made their confidence, shall be their shame.

And hear ye this, all you who have discovered the treasures which I amto leave behind me: If I leave behind me ten pounds, (above my debts, and my books, or what may happen to be due on account of them,) you and all mankind bear witness against me, that I lived and died a thief and a robber, 97. Before I conclude, I cannot but entreat you who know God to review the whole matter from the foundation. Call to mind what the state of religion was in our nation a few years since. In whom did you find the holy tempers that were in Christ? bowels of mercies, lowliness, meekness, gentleness, contempt of the world, patience, temperance, long-suffering? a burning love to God, rejoicing evermore, and in everything giving thanks; and a tender love to all mankind, covering, believing, hoping, enduring all things? Perhaps you did not know one such man in the world. But how many that had all unholy tempers? What vanity and pride, what stubbornness and self-will, what anger, fretfulness, discontent, what suspicion and resentment, what inordinate affections, what irregular pas sions, what foolish and hurtful desires, might you find in those who were called the best of men, in those who made the strict est profession of religion? And how few did you know who went so far as the profession of religion, who had even the “form of godliness!” Did you not frequently bewail, wherever your lot was cast, the general want of even outward religion? How few were seen at the public worship of God! how much fewer at the Lord’s table ! And was cven this little flock zealous of good works, careful, as they had time, to do good to all men? On the other hand, did you not with grief observe outward irreligion in every place? Where could you be for one week without being an eye or an ear witness of cursing, swearing, or profaneness, of sabbath-breaking or drunkenness, of quarrelling or brawling, of revenge or obscenity? Were these things done in a corner ? Did not gross iniquity of all kinds overspread our land as a flood? yea, and daily increase, in spite of all the oppo sition which the children of God did or could make against it? 98.

Answer. I suppose, by devotion, you mean public worship; by the true ends of it, the love of God and man; and by a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way, the going as often as we have oppor tunity to our parish church, and to the sacrament there adminis tered. If so, the question is, whether this attendance on those offices does not produce the love of God and man. I answer, Sometimes it does; and sometimes it does not. I myself thus attended them for many years; and yet am conscious to myself that during that whole time I had no more of the love of God than a stone. And I know many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of serious persons, who are ready to testify the same thing. Q. 2. But is not this a better evidence of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, than those sudden agonies? A. All these persons, as well as I, can testify also that this is no evidence at all of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit. For some years I attended these public offices, because I would not be punished for non-attendance. And many of these attended them, because their parents did before them, or because they would not lose their character: Many more, because they confounded the means with the end, and fancied this opus operatum would bring them to heaven. How many thousands are now under this strong delusion | Beware, you bring not their blood on your own head ! Q. 3. However, does not this attendance better answer those ends, than those roarings, screamings? &c. A. I suppose you mean, better than an attendance on that preaching, which has often been accompanied with these. I answer, (1.) There is no manner of need to set the one in opposition to the other; seeing we continually exhort all who attend on our preaching to attend the offices of the Church. And they do pay a more regular attendance there than ever they did before. (2.) Their attending the Church did not, in fact, answer those ends at all till they attended this preaching also. (3.) It is the preaching of remission of sins through Jesus Christ, which alone answers the true ends of devotion.

These do not tend to weaken either thenatural or civil relations among men; or to lead inferiors to a disesteem of their superiors, even where those superiors are neither good nor sober men. Query the Seventh --“Whether a gradual improvement in grace and goodness is not a better foundation of comfort, and of an assurance of a gospel new-birth, than that which is founded on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change; which, if there be any such thing, is not easily distinguished from fancy and imagination; the workings whereof we may well sup pose to be more strong and powerful, while the person considers himself in the state of one who is admitted as a candidate for such a change, and is taught in due time to expect it.” Let us go one step at a time. Query 1. Whether a gradual improvement in grace and goodness is not a good foundation of comfort. Answer. Doubtless it is, if by grace and goodness be meant the knowledge and love of God through Christ. Q. 2. Whether it be not a good foundation of an assurance of a gospel new-birth. A. If we daily grow in this knowledge and love, it is a good proof that we are born of the Spirit. But this does in mowise supersede the previous witness of God's Spirit with ours, that we are the children of God. And this is properly the foundation of the assurance of faith. Q. 3. Whether this improvement is not a better foundation of comfort, and ofanassuranceofagospel new-birth, than that which is founded on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change. A. A better foundation than that. That 1 What? To what substantive does this refer? According to the rulesofgrammar, (for all the substantives are in the genitive case, and, conse quently, to be considered as only parts of that which governs them,) you must mean a better foundation than that foundation which is founded on this doctrine. As soon as I understand the question, I will endeavour to answer it. Q. 4. Can that sudden and instantaneous change be easily distinguished from fancy and imagination? A. Just as easily as light from darkness; seeing it brings with it a peace that passeth all understanding, a joy unspeak able, full of glory, the love of God and all mankind filling the heart, and power over all sin.

This text, therefore, is directly to the purpose, in respect of both the propositions to be proved. The other is, “We love him, because he first loved us.” And here also, for fear I should fail in the proof, you have drawn it up ready to my hands:-- “God sent his only Son to redeem us from sin, by purchas ing for us grace and salvation. By which grace we, through faith and repentance, have our sins pardoned; and therefore we are bound to return the tribute of our love and gratitude, and to obey him faithfully as long as we live.” Now, that we have our sins pardoned, if we do not know they are pardoned, cannot bind us either to love or obedience. But if we do know it, and by that very knowledge or confidence in the pardoning love of God are both bound and enabled to love and obey him, this is the whole of what I contend for. 2. You afterwards object against some othertexts which I had cited to illustrate the nature of saving faith. My words were, “Hear believing Job declaring his faith: ‘I know that my Redeemer liveth.’” I here affirm two things: (1.) That Job was then a believer. (2.) That he declared his faith in these words. And all I affirm, you allow. Your own words are, “God was pleased to bestow upon him a strong assurance of his favour; to inspire him with a prophecy of the resurrection, and that he should have a share in it.” I went on, “Hear Thomas (when having seen he believed) crying out, ‘My Lord and my God.” Hereon you comment thus: “The meaning of which is, that St. Thomas makes a confession both of his faith and repentance.” I agree with you. But you add, “In St. Thomas’s confession there is not implied an assurance of pardon.” You cannot agree with yourself in this; but immediately subjoin, “If it did imply such an assurance, he might well have it, since he had an immediate revelation of it from God himself.” Yet a little before you endeavoured to prove that one who was not a whit behind the very chief Apostles had not such an assurance; where, in order to show that faith does not imply this, you said, “St.

Thomas’s confession there is not implied an assurance of pardon.” You cannot agree with yourself in this; but immediately subjoin, “If it did imply such an assurance, he might well have it, since he had an immediate revelation of it from God himself.” Yet a little before you endeavoured to prove that one who was not a whit behind the very chief Apostles had not such an assurance; where, in order to show that faith does not imply this, you said, “St. Paul methinks has fully determined this point, ‘I know nothing by myself,’ says he; ‘yet am I not hereby justified.’” (1 Cor. iv. 4.) “And if an Apostle, so illuminated, does not think himself justified,” then I grant, he has fully determined the point. But before you absolutely fix upon that conclusion, be pleased to remember your own comment that follows, on those other words of St. Paul : “The life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Your words are, “And, no question, a person endowed with such extraordinary gifts might arrive at a very eminent degree of assurance.” So he did arrive at a very eminent degree of assurance, though he did not think himself justified ! I can scarce think you have read over that chapter to the Colossians; else, surely, you would not assert that those words on which the stress lies (viz., “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, eventheforgiveness of sins,”)“do not relate to Pauland Timothy who wrote the Epistle, but to the Colossians, to whom they wrote.” I need be at no pains to answer this; for presently after your own words are, “He hath made us,” meaning the Colossians, as well as himself, “meet to be inheritors.” 3. You may easily observe that I quoted the Council of Trent by memory, not having the book then by me. I own, and thank you for correcting, my mistake: But in correct ing one you make another; for the decrees of the Sixth Session were not published on the thirteenth of January; but the Session itself began on that day.

Yea, and how can the absolute necessity of this faith, this unwavering confidence, be more strongly or peremptorily asserted, than it is in those words: “If we begin to waver or doubt, it is to be feared lest we sink as Peter did,--not into the water, but into the bottomless pit of hell-fire?” 6. I would willingly dismiss this writer here. I had said in the “Earnest Appeal,” (what I am daily more and more confirmed in,) that this faith is usually given in a moment. This you greatly dislike. Your argument against it, if put into form, will run thus:-- “They who first apprehended the meaning of the words delivered, then gave their assent to them, then had confidence in the promises to which they assented, and, lastly, loved God, did not receive faith in a moment. “But the believers mentioned in the Acts first apprehended the meaning of the words, then gave their assent, then had confidence in the promises, and, lastly, loved God: Therefore, “The believers mentioned in the Acts did not receive faith in a moment.” I deny the major. They might first apprehend, then assent, then confide, then love, and yet receive faith in a moment; in that moment wherein their general confidence became particular, so that each could say, “My Lord and my God!” One paragraph more I will be at the pains to transcribe: “You insinuate that the sacraments are only requisite to the well-being of a visible Church: Whereas the Church declares that the due administration of them is an essential property thereof. I suppose you hinted this to satisfy your loving dis ciples, the Quakers.” This is flat and plain. Here is a fact positively averred; and a reason also assigned for it. Now, do you take yourself to be a man of candour, I had almost said, of common honesty? My very words in the place referred to, are, “A visible Church is a company of faithful people. This is the essence of it. And the properties thereof are, that the pure word of God be preached therein, and the sacraments duly administered.” 7.

And the properties thereof are, that the pure word of God be preached therein, and the sacraments duly administered.” 7. Before I take my leave I cannot but recommend to you that advice of a wise and good man,-- “Be calm in arguing; for fierceness makes Error a fault, and truth discourtesy.” I am grieved at your extreme warmth : You are in a thorough ill-humour from the very beginning of your book to the end. This cannot hurt me; but it may yourself. And it does not at all help your cause. If you denounce against me all the curses from Genesis to the Revelation, they will not amount to one argument. I am willing (so far as I know myself) to be reproved either by you or any other. But whatever you do, let it be done in love, in patience, in meekness of wisdom. V. 1. With regard to the Author of faith and salvation, abundance of objections have been made; it being a current opinion, that Christians are not now to receive the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, whenever we speak of the Spirit of God, of his operations on the souls of men, of his revealing unto us the things of God, or inspiring us with good desires or tempers; whenever we mention the feeling his mighty power “work ing in us” according to his good pleasure; the general answer we have to expect is, “This is rank enthusiasm. So it was with the Apostles and first Christians. But only enthusiasts pretend to this now.” Thus all the Scriptures, abundance of which might be pro duced, are set aside at one stroke. And whoever cites them, as belonging to all Christians, is set down for an enthusiast. The first tract I have seen wrote expressly on this head, is remarkably entitled, “The Operations of the Holy Spirit im perceptible; and how Men may know when they are under the Guidance and Influence of the Spirit.” You begin: “As we have some among us who pretend to a more than ordinary guidance by the Spirit,” (indeed I do not; I pretend to no other guidance than is ordinarily given to all Christians,) “it may not be improper to discourse on the operations of God’s Holy Spirit.

The first tract I have seen wrote expressly on this head, is remarkably entitled, “The Operations of the Holy Spirit im perceptible; and how Men may know when they are under the Guidance and Influence of the Spirit.” You begin: “As we have some among us who pretend to a more than ordinary guidance by the Spirit,” (indeed I do not; I pretend to no other guidance than is ordinarily given to all Christians,) “it may not be improper to discourse on the operations of God’s Holy Spirit. “To this end be thou pleased, O gracious Fountain of Truth, to assist me with thy heavenly direction, in speaking of thee.” Alas, Sir, what need have you to speak any more? You have already granted all I desire, viz., that we may all now enjoy, and know that we do enjoy, the heavenly direction of God’s Spirit. However, you go on, and observe that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were granted to the first Christians only, but his ordinary graces to all Christians in all ages; both which you then attempt to enumerate; only suspending your discourse a little, when “some conceited enthusiasts” come in your way. 2. You next inquire, “after what manner these graces are raised in our souls;” and answer, “How to distinguish these heavenly motions from the natural operations of our minds, we have no light to discover; the Scriptures declaring, that the operations of the Holy Spirit are not subject to any sensible feelings or perceptions. For what communication can there be between feelings which are properties peculiar to matter, and the suggestions of the Spirit? All reasonable Christians believe that he works his graces in us in an imperceptible manner; and that there is no sensible difference between his and the natural operations of our minds.” I conceive this to be the strength of your cause. To support that conclusion, that the operations of the Spirit are impercep tible, you here allege, (1) “That all reasonable Christians believe this.” So you say; but I want proof. (2.) “That there can be no communications” (Ifear you mistook the word) “between the suggestions of the Spirit, and feelings which are properties peculiar to matter.” How ! Are the feelings now in question “properties peculiar to matter?” the feeling of peace, joy, love, or any feelings at all?

Are the feelings now in question “properties peculiar to matter?” the feeling of peace, joy, love, or any feelings at all? I can no more understand the philosophy than the divinity of this. (3.) “That the Scriptures declare the operations of the Spirit are not subject to any sensi ble feelings.” You are here disproving, as you suppose, a propo sition of mine. But are you sure you understand it? By feel ing, I mean, being inwardly conscious of. By the operations of the Spirit, I do not mean the manner in which he operates, but the graces which he operates in a Christian. Now, be pleased to produce those scriptures which declare that a Christian cannot feel or perceive these operations. 3. Are you not convinced, Sir, that you have laid to my charge things which I know not? I do not gravely tell you (as much an enthusiast as you over and over affirm me to be) that I sensibly feel (in your sense) the motions of the Holy Spirit. Much less do I make this, any more than “convulsions, agonies, howlings, roarings, and violent contortions of the body,” either “certain signs of men’s being in a state of sal vation,” or “necessary in order thereunto.” You might with equal justice and truth inform the world, and the worshipful the magistrates of Newcastle, that I make seeing the wind, or feeling the light, necessary to salvation. Neither do I confound the extraordinary with the ordinary operations of the Spirit. And as to your last inquiry, “What is the best proof of our being led by the Spirit P” I have no exception to that just and scriptural answer which you your self have given,-“A thorough change and renovation of mind and heart, and the leading a new and holy life.” 4. That I confound the extraordinary with the ordinary operations of the Spirit, and therefore am an enthusiast, is also strongly urged, in a charge delivered to his Clergy, and lately published, by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. An extract of the former part of this I subjoin, in his Lord ship’s words: “I cannot think it improper to obviate the contagion of those enthusiastical pretensions, that have lately betrayed whole mul titudes either into presumption or melancholy.

An extract of the former part of this I subjoin, in his Lord ship’s words: “I cannot think it improper to obviate the contagion of those enthusiastical pretensions, that have lately betrayed whole mul titudes either into presumption or melancholy. Enthusiasm, indeed, when detected, is apt to create infidelity; and infidelity is so shocking a thing, that many rather run into the other extreme, and take refuge in enthusiasm. But infidelity and enthusiasm seem now to act in concert against our established religion. As infidelity has been sufficiently opposed, I shall now lay before you the weakness of those enthusiastical pre tensions.” (Pp. 1, 2.) “Now, to confute effectually, and strike at the root of, those enthusiastical pretensions, “First, I shall show that it is necessary to lay down some method for distinguishing real from pretended inspiration.” (Pp. 3, 5.) “Many expressions occur in the New Testament concerning the operations of the Holy Spirit. But men of an enthusias tical temper have confounded passages of a quite different nature, and have jumbled together those that relate to the extraordinary operations of the Spirit, with those that relate only to his ordinary influences. It is therefore necessary to use some method for separating those passages relating to the operations of the Spirit, that have been so misapplied to the service of enthusiastical pretenders.” (Pp. 5-7.) “I proceed therefore to show, “Secondly, that a distinction is to be made between those passages of Scripture about the blessed Spirit that peculiarly belong to the primitive Church, and those that relate to Christians in all ages.” (P. 7.) “The exigences of the apostolical age required the miracu lous gifts of the Spirit. But these soon ceased. When there fore we meet in the Scripture with an account of those extra ordinary gifts, and likewise with an account of his ordinary operations, we must distinguish the one from the other. And that, not only for our own satisfaction, but as a means to stop the growth of enthusiasm.” (Pp. 8-10.) “And such a distinction ought to be made by the best methods of interpreting the Scriptures; which most certainly are an attentive consideration of the occasion and scope of those passages, in concurrence with the general sense of the primitive Church.” (P.

“And when he is come, he will reprove,” or convince, “the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: “Of sin, because they believe not on me; “Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; “Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. “I have yet many things to say unto you; but ye cannot bear them now: But when he shall come, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth; and he will show you things to come.” (xvi. 7-13.) There is only one sentence here which has not already been considered, “He will show you things to come.” And this, it is granted, relates to the gift of prophecy, one of the extraordinary operations of the Spirit. The general conclusion which your Lordship draws is expressed in these words: “Consequently, all pretensions to the Spirit, in the proper sense of the words of this promise, (that is, of these several texts of St. John,) are vain and insignificant, as they are claimed by modern enthusiasts.” And in the end of the same paragraph you add, “None but the ordinary operations of the Spirit are to be now expected, since those that are of a miraculous (or extraordinary) kind are not pretended to, even by modern enthusiasts.” My Lord, this is surprising. I read it over and over before I could credit my own eyes. I verily believe, this one clause, with unprejudiced persons, will be an answer to the whole book. You have been vehemently crying out all along against those enthusiastical pretenders; nay, the very design of your book, as you openly declare, was “to stop the growth of their enthusi asm; who have had the assurance” (as you positively affirm, page 6) “to claim to themselves the extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit.” And here you as positively affirm that those extraordinary operations “are not pretended to ” by them at all ! 8.

8. Yet your Lordship proceeds: “The next passage of Scrip ture I shall mention, as peculiarly belonging to the primitive times, though misapplied to the present state of Christians by modern enthusiasts, is what relates to the “testimony of the Spirit, and ‘praying by the Spirit, in the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.” (Page 16.) I believe it incumbent upon methoroughly to weigh the force of your Lordship's reasoning on this head. You begin: “After St. Paul had treated of that spiritual principle in Christians, which enables them “to mortify the deeds of the body, he says, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” This makes the distinction of a true Christian, particularly in opposition to the Jews.” I apprehend it is just here that your Lordship turns out of the way, when you say, “particularly in opposition to the Jews.” Such a particular opposition I cannot allow, till some stronger proof is produced, than St. Paul’s occa sionally mentioning, six verses before, “the imperfection of the Jewish law.” Yet your Lordship's mind is so full of this, that after repeat ing the fourteenth and fifteenth verses, “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father !” you add, “In the former part of this verse, the Apostle shows again the imperfection of the Jewish law.” This also calls for proof; otherwise it will not be allowed, that he here speaks of the Jew ish law at all; not, though we grant that “the Jews were sub ject to the fear of death, and lived, in consequence of it, in a state of bondage.” For are not all unbelievers, as well as the Jews, more or less, in the same fear and bondage? Your Lordship goes on : “In the latter part of the verse he shows the superiority of the Christian law to that of the Jews.” (P. 18.) Where is the proof, my Lord?

Your Lordship adds, “But what was the ground of this pre ference that was given to Christians? It was plainly the mira culous gifts of the Spirit, which they had, and which the Jews had not.” This preference given to Christians was just before expressed by their becoming the sons of God instead of the Jews. Were the gifts of the Spirit then the ground of this pre ference, the ground of their becoming the sons of God? What an assertion is this ! And how little is it mended, though I al low that “these miraculous gifts of the Spirit were a testimony that God acknowledged the Christians to be his people, and not the Jews;” since the Christians, who worked miracles, did it, not “by the works of the law,” but by “the hearing of faith !” Your Lordship concludes, “From these passages of St. Paul, compared together, it clearly follows, that the fore-men tioned testimony of the Spirit was the public testimony of miraculous gifts; and, consequently, the witness of the Spirit that we are the children of God, cannot possibly be applied to the private testimony of the Spirit given to our own con sciences, as is pretended by modern enthusiasts.” (P. 20.) If your conclusion, my Lord, will stand without the pre mises, it may; but that it has no manner of connexion with them, I trust does partly, and will more fully, appear, when we view the whole passage to which you refer; and I believe that passage, with very little comment, will prove, in direct oppo sition to that conclusion, that the testimony of the Spirit, there mentioned, is not the public testimony of miraculous gifts, but must be applied to the private testimony of the Spirit, given to our own consciences. 10. St. Paul begins the eighth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, with the great privilege of every Christian believer, (whether Jew or Gentile before,) “There is now no con demnation for them that are in Christ Jesus,” engrafted into him by faith, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For” now every one of them may truly say, “The law,” or power, “of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” given unto me for his sake, “hath made me free from the law,” or power, “of sin and death.

Therefore, bre thren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: But if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Verses 9-14.) Is there one word here, is there any the least intimation, of miraculous gifts, or of the Jewish law? It follows, “For ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear; ” such as all sinners have, when they are at first stirred up to seek God, and begin to serve him from a slavish fear of punishment; “but ye have received the Spirit. of adoption,” of free love, “whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself,” which God “hath sent forth into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father, beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” (Verses 15, 16.) I am now willing to leave it, without farther comment, to the judgment of every impartial reader, whether it does not. appear from the whole scope and tenor of the text and con text taken together, that this passage does not refer to the Jewish law, nor to the public testimony of miracles; neither of which can be dragged in without putting the utmost force on the natural meaning of the words. And if so, it will fol low, that this “witness of the Spirit” is the private testimony given to our own consciences; which, consequently, all sober Christians may claim, without any danger of enthusiasm. 11. “But I go on,” says your Lordship, “to the considera tion of the other passages in the same chapter, relating to our praying by the Spirit, namely, at verses 26 and 27, which run thus: “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: For we know not what we should pray for as we ought : But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh interces sion for the saints according to the will of God.’” (P. 21.) Here is a circumstance highly needful to be observed, be fore we enter upon this question. Your Lordship undertakes to fix the meaning of an expression used by St.

Your Lordship undertakes to fix the meaning of an expression used by St. Paul, in the fourteenth chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians. And in order thereto, you laboriously explain part of the eighth chapterof the Romans. My Lord, how is this? Will it be said, “Why, this is often alleged to prove the wrong sense of that scripture?” I conceive, this will not salve the matter at all. Your Lordship had before laid down a particular method, as the only sure one whereby to distinguish what scriptures belong to all Christians, and what do not. This method is, the considering the occasion and scope of those passages, by com paring the text and context together. You then propose, by the use of this method, to show, that several texts have been misapplied by enthusiasts. One of these is the fifteenth verse of the fourteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corin thians. And to show, that enthusiasts have misapplied this, you comment on the eighth chapter to the Romans ! However, let us weigh the comment itself. The material part of it begins thus: “Now he adds another proof of the truth of Christianity: “Likewise the Spirit helpeth our infirmities,” or our distresses, for aoréevetats signifies both.” (P. 22.) I doubt that: I require authority for it. “And then he mentions, in what instances he does so, viz., in prayers to God about afflictions.”--In nothing else, my Lord? Did he “help their infirmities” in no other instance than this? “‘We know not,’ says he, “what we should pray for as we ought.” That is, whether it be best for us to bear afflictions, or to be delivered from them. But the Spirit, or the gift of the Spirit, instructs us how to pray in a manner agreeable to the will of God.” “The Spirit, or the gift of the Spirit !” What marvellous reasoning is this? If these “are often put for each other,” what then? How is that evinced to be the case here? 12. “The Apostle goes on, ‘The Spirit itself maketh inter cession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.’ That is, the spiritual or inspired person prayed in that capacity for the whole assembly.” (P. 23.) “That is !” Nay, that is again the very point to be proved, else we get not one step farther.

Bened.) where his words are these :-- “‘When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, and he will teach you all things.’ The sum of all good things consists in this, that a man be found worthy to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, nothing will be accounted perfectin him who hath not the Holy Spirit.” Do these words confirm that “sense of those passages which your Lordship had assigned ?” Rather do they not utterly overturn it, and prove (as above) that although this promise of our Lord primarily belongs to the Apostles, yet, in the secondary sense, it belongs (according to Origen’s judgment) to all Christians in all ages? 17. The fourth text mentioned as belonging to the first Christians only, is Romans viii. 15, 16; and it is said, page 26, “This interpretation is confirmed by the authority of the most eminent fathers.” The reader is particularly referred to Origen and Jerome in locum. But here seems to be a mistake of the name. Jerome in locum should mean, Jerome upon the place, upon Romans viii. 15, 16. But I cannot perceive that there is one word upon that place, in all St. Jerome's Works. Nor indeed has Origen commented upon it any more than Jerome. But he occasionally mentions it in these words:-- “He is a babe who is fed with milk; but if he seeks the things that are above, without doubt he will be of the number of those who “receive not the spirit of bondage again unto fear, but the Spirit of adoption, through whom they cry, ‘Abba, Father.’” (Vol. i., p. 79.) Again: “The fulness of time is come; when they who are willing receive the adoption, as Paul teaches in these words, ‘Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!’ And it is written in the Gospel according to St. John, ‘To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to then that believe in his name.’” (Vol. i., pp.

i., pp. 231, 232.) Yet again: “Every one that is born of God, and doth not commit sin, by his very actions saith, “Our Father which art in heaven; ‘the Spirit itself bearing witness with their spirit, that they are the children of God.’” (Ibid.) According to Origen, therefore, this testimony of the Spirit is not any public testimony by miracles, peculiar to the first times, but an inward testimony, belonging in common to all that are born of God; and consequently the authority of Origen does not “confirm that interpretation” neither, but absolutely destroys it. 18. The last authority your Lordship appeals to on this text is, “that of the great John Chrysostom, who reckons the testimony of the Spirit of adoption by which we cry, ‘Abba, Father, among the miraculous gifts of the Spirit.” “I rather choose” (your Lordship adds, p. 26) “to refer you to the words of St. Chrysostom, than to transcribe them here, as having almost translated them in the present account of the testimony of the Spirit.” However, I believe it will not be labour lost to transcribe a few of those words. It is in his comment on the fourteenth verse, that he first mentions St. Paul’s comparison between a Jew and a Chris tian. How fairly your Lordship has represented this, let every reader judge:- “‘As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”--Whereas the same title had been given of old to the Jews also, he shows in the sequel, how great a difference there is between that honour and this. For though, says he, the titles are the same, yet the things are not. And he plainly proves it, by comparing both what they had received, and what they looked for. And first he shows what they had received, viz., a ‘spirit of bondage. Therefore he adds, “Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption.’ What means the spirit of fear?-Observe their whole life, and you will know clearly. For punishments were at their heels, and much fear was on every side, and before their face. But with us it is not so.

But with us it is not so. For our mind and conscience are cleansed, so that we do all things well, not for fear of present punishment, but through our love of God, and an habit of virtue. They therefore, though they were called sons, yet were as slaves; but we, being made free, have received the adoption, and look not for a land of milk and honey, but for heaven. “He brings also another proof, that we have the Spirit of adoption, by which, says he, we cry, ‘Abba, Father. This is the first word we utter ueta tas 6avuaatas obvas exceivas, scal Tov £evov cat Trapabokov Xoxevuatov voluov; after those amazing throes, (or birth-pangs,) and that strange and won derful manner of bringing forth. “He brings yet another proof of the superiority of those who had this Spirit of adoption: ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.' I prove this, says he, not only from the voice itself, but also from the cause whence that voice proceeds: For the Spirit suggests the words while we thus speak, which he hath elsewhere expressed more plainly, ‘God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father!’ But what is, ‘The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit?” He means, the Paraclete by the gift given unto us.” (But that this was an extraordinary gift, we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after.) “And when ‘the Spirit beareth witness, what doubt is left? If a man or an angel spake, some might doubt; but when the Most High beareth witness to us, who can doubt any longer?” Now let any reasonable man judge how far your Lordship has “translated the words of St. Chrysostom; and whether he reckons the testimony of the Spirit among the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost,” or among those ordinary gifts of the Spirit of Christ which if a man have not he is none of his. 19. The fifth text your Lordship quotes, as describing a miraculous gift of the Spirit, is 1 Cor. xiv.

xiv. 15: To prove which, you comment on the eighth chapter to the Romans, particularly the twenty-sixth verse; and here again it is said, that “the interpretation assigned is confirmed by several of the most eminent fathers, more especially the great John Chrysostom, as well as by Origen and Jerome upon the place.” I cannot find St. Jerome to have writ one line upon the place. And it is obvious, that St. Chrysostom supposes the whole con text from the seventeenth to the twenty-fifth verse, torelate to all Christians in all ages. How this can be said to “confirm the interpretation assigned,” I cannot conjecture. Nay, it is remark able, that he expounds the former part of the twenty-sixth verse as describing the ordinary privilege of all Christians. Thus far, therefore, he does not confirm but overthrow, the “interpre tation before assigned.” But in the middle of the verse he breaks off, and expounds the latter part, as describing one of the miraculous gifts. Yet I must do the justice to this venerable man to observe, he does not suppose that a miraculous gift was given, only that the inspired might do what any ordinary Christian might have done without it; (this interpretation, even of the latter part of the verse, he does in nowise confirm;) but that he might ask, in every particular circumstance, the determinate thing which it was the will of God to give. 20. The third father by whom it is said this interpretation is confirmed, is Origen. The first passage of his, which relates to Rom. viii. 26, runs thus: “Paul, perceiving how far he was, after all these things, from knowing to pray for what he ought, as he ought, says, “We know not what we should pray for as we ought. But he adds, whence, what is wanting may be had by one who indeed does not know, but labours to be found worthy of having the defect. supplied. For he says, “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought. But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered.

But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit; because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God.” The Spirit which crieth, ‘Abba, Father, in the hearts of the saints, knowing well our groanings in this tabernacle, “maketh intercession for us to God, with groanings which cannot be uttered.’ To the same effect is that Scripture: ‘I will pray with the Spirit, I will pray with the understanding also.” (1 Cor. xiv. 15. For our understanding (or mind, o vows) cannot pray, if the Spirit do not pray before it, and the understanding, as it were, listen to it.” (Vol. i., p. 199.) Again: “I would know how the saints cry to God without a voice. The Apostle shows, ‘God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father !’ and he adds, “The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered.’ And again, “He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God.” Thus, therefore, the Spirit making intercession for us with God, the cry of the saints is heard without a voice.” (Vol. ii., p. 146.) Once more in his Homily on Joshua : “Jesus our Lord doth not forsake us; but although when we would pray, “we know not what to pray for as we ought,’ yet ‘the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groan ings which cannot be uttered. Now the Lord is that Spirit: ” The Spirit assists our prayers, and offers them to God with groanings which we cannot express in words.” (Vol. ii., p. 419.) I believe all rational men will observe from hence, that Origen is so far from confirming, that he quite overturns, your Lordship’s interpretation of the sixteenth as well as the twenty-sixth verse of this chapter; seeing, in his judgment, both that testimony of the Spirit and this prayer belong to all Christians in all ages. 21. The sixth scripture which your Lordship has undertaken to show “relates only to the apostolical times,” is 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. And “this interpretation also,” it is said, “is confirmed by the authority of Chrysostom, Origen, and other ancient writers.” (P.

I cannot perceive that he interprets it at all “of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit.” His words are, “The Holy Spirit is called, and is, the unction and the seal. For John writes, ‘The anointing which ye have received of him, abideth in you; and ye need not that any man should teach you, but as his anointing, his Spirit, “teacheth you of all things' Again : It is written in the Prophet Isaiah, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me.’ And Paul writes thus: “In whom also ye were sealed.’ And again: ‘Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” This anointing is the breath of the Son; so that he who hath the Spirit may say, ‘We are the sweet smelling savour of Christ. Because we are par takers of the Holy Spirit, we have the Son; and having the Son, we have ‘the Spirit crying in our hearts, Abba, Father.’” And so in his Oration against the Arians:-- “‘He sendeth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” His Son in us, invoking the Father, makes him to be called our Father. Certainly God cannot be called their Father, who have not the Son in their hearts.” Is it not easy to be observed here, (1.) That Athanasius makes “that testimony of the Spirit” common to all the children of God: (2.) That he joins “the anointing of the Holy One,” with that seal of the Spirit wherewith all that persevere are “sealed to the day of redemption:” And, (3.) That he does not, through out this passage, speak of the extraordinary gifts at all? Therefore, upon the whole, the sense of the primitive Church, so far as it can be gathered from the authors above cited, is, that “although some of the scriptures primarily refer to those extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which were given to the Apos tles, and a few other persons in the apostolical age; yet they refer also, in a secondary sense, to those ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit which all the children of God do and will experience, even to the end of the world.” 23.

Therefore, upon the whole, the sense of the primitive Church, so far as it can be gathered from the authors above cited, is, that “although some of the scriptures primarily refer to those extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which were given to the Apos tles, and a few other persons in the apostolical age; yet they refer also, in a secondary sense, to those ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit which all the children of God do and will experience, even to the end of the world.” 23. What I mean by the ordinary operations of the Holy Ghost, I sum up in the words of a modern writer:-- “Sanctification being opposed to our corruption, and answer ing fully to the latitude thereof, whatsoever of holiness and per fection is wanting in our nature must be supplied by the Spirit of God. Wherefore, being by nature we are totally void of all saving truth, and under an impossibility of knowing the will of God, this ‘Spirit searcheth all things, yea, even the deep things of God,” and revealeth them unto the sons of men, so that thereby the darkness of their understanding is expelled, and they are enlightenéd with the knowledge of God. The same Spirit which revealeth the object of faith generally to the universal Church, doth also illuminate the understanding of such as believe, that they may receive the truth. For ‘faith is the gift of God, not only in the object, but also in the act. And this gift is a gift of the Holy Ghost working within us.-- And as the increase of perfection, so the original of faith, is from the Spirit of God, by an internal illumination of the soul.” “The second part of the office of the Holy Ghost, is the renewing of man in all the parts and faculties of his soul. For our natural corruption consisting in an aversation of our wills, and a depravation of our affections, an inclination of them to the will of God is wrought within us by the Spirit of God. “The third part of this office is, to lead, direct, and govern usin our actions and conversations. “If we live in the Spirit,” quickened by his renovation, we must also ‘walk in the Spirit,” following his direction, led by his manuduction.

“If we live in the Spirit,” quickened by his renovation, we must also ‘walk in the Spirit,” following his direction, led by his manuduction. We are also animated and acted by the Spirit of God, who giveth ‘both to will and to do: And ‘as many as are’ thus ‘led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God.” (Rom. viii. 14.) Moreover, that this direction may prove more effectual, we are guided in our prayers by the same Spirit; according to the promise, ‘I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplication.” (Zech. xii. 10.) Whereas then ‘this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us;” and whereas ‘we know not what we should pray for as we ought, the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered;’ and “he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God.” (Rom. viii.27.) From which intercession,” (made for all true Christians,) “he hath the name of the Paraclete given him by Christ, who said, ‘I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete.” (John xiv. 16,26.)‘For if any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,” saith St. John; ‘who maketh inter cession for us,” saith St. Paul. (Rom. viii. 34.) And we have ‘another Paraclete,” saith our Saviour; (John xiv. 16;) ‘which also maketh intercession for us,” saith St. Paul. (Rom. viii. 27.) A Paraclete, then, in the notion of the Scriptures, is an intercessor. “It is also the office of the Holy Ghost, to “assure us of the adoption of sons,’ to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God towards us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inherit ance.

“It is also the office of the Holy Ghost, to “assure us of the adoption of sons,’ to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God towards us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inherit ance. ‘The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given untous.’ ‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” “And because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.’ ‘For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father; the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” (Verses 15, 16.) “As, therefore, we are born again by the Spirit, and receive from him our regeneration, so we are also by the same Spirit - assured of our adoption.” Because, being ‘sons, we are also heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, by the same ‘Spirit we have the pledge, or rather the ‘earnest, of our inherit ance.” For ‘he which establishethus in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of his Spirit in our hearts:’ So that “we are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inherit ance. The Spirit of God, as given unto us in this life, is to be looked upon as an earnest, being part of that reward which is promised, and, upon performance of the covenant which God hath made with us, certainly to be received.” Your Lordship observed, that “the interpretation of those passages which relate to the ‘unction from the Holy One,” depends on the sense of those other passages of Holy Scripture, particularly those in St. John’s Gospel.” Now, if so, then these words fix the sense of six out of the seven texts in question; and every one of them, in the judgment of this writer, describes the ordinary gifts bestowed on all Christians. It now rests with your Lordship to take your choice; either to condemn or to acquit both.

This is not the result of our matural understanding. “The natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God:” So that we never can discern them, until God “reveals them unto us by his Spirit.” Reveals, that is, unveils, uncovers; gives us to know what we did not know before. Have we love? It “is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” He inspires, breathes, infuses into our soul, what of ourselves we could not have. Does our spirit rejoice in God our Saviour? It is “joy in,” or by, “the Holy Ghost.” Have we true inward peace? It is “the peace of God,” wrought in us by the same Spirit. Faith, peace, joy, love, are all his fruits. And as we are figuratively said to see the light of faith; so, by a like figure of speech, we are said to feel this peace and joy and love; that is, we have an inward experience of them, which we cannot find any fitter word to express. The reasons why, in speaking of these things, I use those terms, (inspiration particularly,) are, (1.) Because they are scriptural: (2.) Because they are used by our Church : (3.) Because I know none better. The word, “influence of the Holy Ghost,” which I suppose you use, is both a far stronger and a less natural term than inspiration. It is far stronger; even as far as “flowing into the soul” is a stronger expression than “breathing upon it;”--and less natural, as breathing bears a near relation to spirit; to which flowing in has only a distant relation. But you thought I had meant “immediate inspiration.” So I do, or I mean nothing at all. Not indeed such inspiration as is sine mediis. But all inspiration, though by means, is imme diate. Suppose, for instance, you are employed in private prayer, and God pours his love into your heart. God then acts immediately on your soul; and the love of him which you then experience, is as immediately breathed into you by the Holy Ghost, as if you had lived seventeen hundred years ago. Change the term: Say, God then assists you to love him. Well, and is not this immediate assistance 2 Say, His Spirit concurs with yours. You gain no ground. It is immediate con currence, or none at all.

It is immediate con currence, or none at all. God, a Spirit, acts upon your spirit. Make it out any otherwise if you can. I cannot conceive how that harmless word immediate came to be such a bugbear in the world: “Why, I thought you meant such inspiration as the Apostles had; and such a receiving the Holy Ghost as that was at the day of Pentecost.” I do, in part: Indeed I do not mean, that Christians now receive the Holy Ghost in order to work miracles; but they do doubtless now “receive,” yea, are “filled with, the Holy Ghost,” in order to be filled with the fruits of that blessed Spirit. And he inspires into all true believers now, a degree of the same peace and joy and love which the Apostles felt in themselves on that day, when they were first “filled with the Holy Ghost.” 29. I have now considered the most material objections I know, which have been lately made against the great doctrines I teach. I have produced, so far as in me lay, the strength of those objections, and then answered them, I hope, in the spirit of meekness. And now I trust it appears, that these doctrines. are no other than the doctrines of Jesus Christ; that they are all evidently contained in the word of God, by which alone I desire to stand or fall; and that they are fundamentally the same with the doctrines of the Church of England, of which I do, and ever did, profess myself a member. But there remains one objection, which, though relating to the head of doctrine, yet is independent on all that went before. And that is, “You cannot agree in your doctrines among yourselves. One holds one thing, and one another. Mr. Whitefield anathematizes Mr. Wesley; and Mr. Wesley anathematizes Mr. Whitefield. And yet each pretends to be led by the Holy Ghost, by the infallible Spirit of God! Every reasonable man must conclude from hence, that neither one nor the other is led by the Spirit.” I need not say, how continually this has been urged, both in common conversation and from the press: (I am grieved to add, and from the pulpit too; for, if the argument were good, it would overturn the Bible:) Nor, how great stress has been continually laid upon it.

No more than you believe he had eighty millions. Is not all this talk of danger mere finesse, thrown in purely ad movendam invi diam ** You know governments generally are suspicious; *To excite ill-will.-EDIT. especially in the time of war; and therefore apply, as you sup pose, to their weak side; in hopes, if possible, to deliver over these heretics to the secular arm. However, I will answer as if you spoke from your heart: For I am in earnest, if you are not. (1.) “The Preacher cannot know a tenth part of his congre gation.” Let us come to the present state of things. The largest congregations that now attend the preaching of any Methodist, are those (God be merciful to me!) that attend mine. And cannot I know a tenth part of one of these congre gations, either at Bristol, Kingswood, Newcastle, or London? As strange as it may seem, I generally know two-thirds of the congregation in every place, even on Sunday evening, and nine in ten of those who attend at most other times. (2.) “All people may come and carry on what designs they will.” Not so. All field-preaching is now in the open day. And were only ten persons to come to such an assembly with arms, it would soon be inquired, with what design they came. This is therefore, (3.) No “great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.” And if ever any disturbance. has been raised, it was quite of another kind. : The public, then, is entirely safe, if it be in no other danger than arises from field-preaching. 7. There is one other sentence belonging to this head, in the eighth section of the “Observations.” “Thereligious societies,” you say, “in London and Westminster, for many years past, have received no discouragements, but, on the contrary, have been countenanced and encouraged both by the Bishops and Clergy.” How is this? Have they then “qualified themselves and places of their assembling, according to the Act of Tolera tion?” Have they “embraced the protection which that Act might give them, in case they complied with the conditions. of it?” If not, are they not all “liable to the penalties of the several statutes made before that time against unlawful assemblies?” How can they escape?

But in other instances, where those convictions sink deep, and the arrows of the Almighty stick fast in the soul, you will drive the person into real, settled madness, before you can quench the Spirit of God. I am afraid there have been several instances of this. You have forced the man’s conscience, till he is stark mad. But then, pray do not impute that madness to me. Had you left him to my direction, or rather to the direction of the Spirit of God, he would have been filled with love and a sound mind. But you have taken the matter out of God’s hand; and now you have brought it to a fair conclusion | 16. How frequent this case maybe, I know not. But doubt less most of those who make this objection, of our driving men mad, have never met with such an instance in their lives. The common cry is occasioned, either by those who are convinced of sin, or those who are inwardly converted to God; mere madness both, (as was observed before,) to those who are without God in the world. Yet I do not deny, but you may have seen one in Bedlam, who said he had followed me. But observe, a mad man's saying this, is no proof of the fact; nay, and if he really had, it should be farther considered, that his being in Bedlam is no sure proof of his being mad. Witness the well-known case of Mr. Periam; and I doubt more such are to be found. Yea, it is well if some have not been sent thither, for no other reason, but because they followed me; their kind relations either concluding that they must be distracted, before they could do this; or, perhaps, hoping that Bedlam would make them mad, if it did not find them so. 17.

For still, “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,” whatever he desires, “he is none of his.” O my brother, beware you stop not short! Beware you never account yourself a Christian, no, not in the lowest degree, till God “hath sent forth the Spirit of Christ into your heart;” and that “Spirit bear witness with your spirit, that you are a child of God.” 3. One step farther from us, are you who are called (though not by your own choice) Anabaptists. The smallness of your number, compared to that of either the Presbyteri ans, or those of the Church, makes it easier for you to have an exact knowledge of the behaviour of all your members, and to put away from among you every one that “walketh not according to the doctrine you have received.” But is this done? Do all your members adorn the gospel? Are they all “holy as He which hath called us is holy?” I fear not. I have known some instances to the contrary; and doubtless you know many more. There are unholy, out wardly unholy men in your congregations also; men that profane either the name or the day of the Lord; that do not honour their natural or civil parents; that know not how to possess their bodies in sanctification and honour; that are in temperate, either in meat or drink, gluttonous, sensual, luxu rious; that variously offend against justice, mercy, or truth, in their intercourse with their neighbour, and do not walk by that royal law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” But how is this consistent with your leading principle,-- “That no man ought to be admitted to baptism, till he has that repentance whereby we forsake sin, and living faith in God through Christ?” For if no man ought to be admitted into a church or con gregation, who has not actual faith and repentance; then neither ought any who has them not, to continue in any con gregation: And, consequently, an open sinner cannot remain amongyou, unless you practically renounceyour main principle. 4. I refer it to your own serious consideration, whether one reason why unholy men are still suffered to remain among you may not be this,--That many of you have unawares put opinion in the room of faith and repentance? But how fatal a mistake is this !

I pray, consider. Do you never compli ment? I do not suppose you say, “Sir, your very humble ser vant;” but do you say no civil things? Do you never flatter? Do you not commend any man or woman to their face? Per haps farther than you do behind their back. Is this plainness of speech? Do you never dissemble? Do you speak to all per sons, high or low, rich or poor, just what you think, neither more nor less, and in the shortest and clearest manner you can P If not, what a mere jest is your plain language! You carry your condemnation in your own breast. 6. You hold also, that “he which is led by the Spirit will use great plainness of dress, seeking no “outward adorning,” but only the ‘ornament of a meek and quiet spirit;” and that, in particular, “he will leave ‘gold and costly apparel” to those who know not God.” Now, I appeal to every serious, reasonable man among you, --Do your people act consistently with this principle? Do not many of your women wear gold upon their very feet; and many of your men use “ ornaments of gold?” Are you a stranger to these things? Have you not seen with your eyes (such trifles as will scarce bear the naming) their canes and snuff-boxes glit ter, even in your solemn assembly, while ye were waiting toge ther upon God? Surely, they are not yet so lost to modesty, as to pretend that they do not use them by way of ornament. If they do not, if it be only out of necessity, a plain oaken stick will supply the place of the one, and a piece of horn or tin will unexceptionably answer all the reasonable ends of the other.- To speak freely, (and do not count me your enemy for this,) you cannot but observe, upon cool reflection, that you retain just so much of your ancient practice, as leaves your present without excuse; as makes the inconsistency, between the one and the other, glaring and undeniable. For instance: This woman is too strict a Quaker to lay out a shilling in a necklace. Very well; but she is not too strict to lay out fourscore guineas in a repeating watch.

Thou art to “speak, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.” To say the very truth, I am afraid you rather strengthen their hands in their wicked ness. For you not only do not testify against it in the con gregation,” but even sit at their table and reprove them not. Why, then, thou also art one of “the dumb dogs that cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.” I fix this charge upon every Preacher, in particular, who saw a young woman, daughter to one of the Quakers in London, going to be married in apparel suitable to her diamond buckle, which cost a hundred guineas. Could you see this, and not call heaven and earth to witness against it? Then I witness against thee, in the name of the Lord, thou art a blind leader of the blind; thou “strainest a gnat, and swallowest a camel !” Verily, the sin both of teachers and hearers is herein exceed ing great. And the little attempts towards plainness of apparel, which are still observable among you, (I mean, in the colour and form of your clothes, and the manner of putting them on,) only testify against you, that you were once what you know in your hearts you are not now. 8. I come now to your main principle: “We are all to be “taught of God, to be inspired and “led by his Spirit: And then we shall ‘worship him, not with dead form, but ‘in spirit and in truth.” These are deep and weighty words; but many hold fast the words, and are utterly ignorant of their meaning. Is not this * You say you do testify against it in the congregation. Against what? “Against gay and gaudy apparel.” I grant it. But this is not the thing I speak of You quite mistake my mark. Do you testify against the costliness of their apparel, however plain and grave it may be? against the price of the velvet, the linen, the silk, or raiment of whatever kind? If you do this frequently and explicitly, you are clear. If not, own and amend the fault. It is easy to discern how your people fell into this snare of the devil. You were at first a poor, despised, afflicted people.

What saith thy heart? Does God dwell therein? And doth it now echo to the voice of God? Hast thou the continual inspiration of his Spirit, filling thy heart with his love, as with a well of water, springing up into everlasting life? 9. Art thou acquainted with the “leading of his Spirit,” not by notion only, but by living experience? I fear very many of you talk of this, who do not so much as know what it means. How does the Spirit of God lead his children to this or that particular action? Do you imagine it is by blind impulse only? by moving you to do it, you know not why? Not so. He leads us by our eye, at least, as much as by the hand; and by light as well as by heat. He shows us the way wherein we should go, as well as incites us to walk therein. For example: Here is a man ready to perish with hunger. How am I “led by the Spirit” to relieve him? First, by His convincing me it is the will of God I should; and Secondly, by His filling my heart with love toward him. Both this light and this heat are the gift of God; are wrought in me by the same Spirit, who leads me, by this conviction as well as love, to go and feed that man. This is the plain, rational account of the ordinary leading of the Spirit; but how far from that which some have given I Art thou thus led by the Spirit to every good word and work, till God hath thereby made thy faith perfect? Dost thou know what faith is? It is a loving, obedient sight of a pre sent and reconciled God. Now, where this is, there is no dead form; neither can be, so long as it continues. But all that is said or done is full of God, full of spirit, and life, and power. 10. But perhaps, as much as you talk of them, you do not know the difference between form and spirit; or between worshipping God in a formal way, and worshipping him “in spirit and in truth.” The Lord is that Spirit. The seeing and feeling and lov ing him is spiritual life.

Well may you shudder at the thought ! more especially when you are about to enter on that untried state of existence. For what a prospect is this, when you stand on the verge of life, ready to launch out into etermity! What can you then think? You see nothing before you. All is dark and dreary. On the very best supposition, how well may you address your parting soul in the words of dying Adrian: Poor, little, pretty, fluttering thing, Must we no longer live together? And dost thou prune thy trembling wing, To take thy flight thou know'st not whither?' Thy pleasing vein, thy humorous folly Is all neglected, all forgot; And pensive, wavering, melancholy, Thou hop'st and fear'st thou know'st not what. “Thou know'st not what l” Here is the sting, suppose there were no other. To be “thou know'st not what !” not for a month, or a year, but through the countless ages of eternity What a tormenting uncertainty must this be What racking unwillingness must it occasion, to exchange even this known vale of tears for the unknown valley of the shadow of death ! And is there no cure for this? Indeed there is an effectual cure; even the knowledge and love of God. There is a know ledge of God which unveils etermity, and a love of God which endears it. That knowledge makes the great abyss visible; and all uncertainty vanishes away. That love makes it amiable to the soul, so that fear has no more place | But the moment God says, by the welcome angel of death, “Come thou up hither l’” she Claps the glad wing, and towers away, And mingles with the blaze of day. 20. See ye not what advantage every way a Christian has * Some to the piercing winds are stretch'd abroad; Some plunged beneath the watery gulf: The fire In some burns out the deep-imprinted stain, Till the long course of slowly-rolling years Has purged out every spot, and pure remains The ethereal spirit, and simple heavenly fire. over you? Probably the reason you saw it not before was, because you knew none but nominal Christians; men who professed to believe more, (in their way of believing,) but had no more of the knowledge or love of God than yourselves: So that with regard to real, inward religion, you stood upon even ground.

O leave that to those blind zealots who tack together a set of opinions and an outside worship, and call this poor, dull, lifeless thing by the sacred name of Chris tianity | Well might you account such Christianity as this a mere piece of empty pageantry, fit indeed to keep the vulgar in awe, but beneath the regard of a man of understanding. But in how different a light does it now appear ! If there be such a religion as I have sketched out, must not every reasonable man see there is nothing on earth to be desired in comparison of it? But if any man desire this, let him ask of God; he giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not. 24. May you not ask, quite consistently with your principles, in some manner resembling this? “O thou Being of beings, thou cause of all, thou seest my heart; thou understandest all my thoughts: But how small a part of thy ways do I understand l I know not what is above, beneath, on every side; I know not my own soul. Only this I know, I am not what I ought to be. I see and approve the virtue which I have not. I do not, love thee, neither am I thankful. I commend the love of mankind; but I feel it not. Thou hast seen hatred, malice, envy in my heart; thou hast seen anger, murmuring, discontent. These uneasy passions harrow up my soul. I cannot rest while I am under this yoke; nor am I able to shake it off; I am unhappy, and that thou knowest. “Have compassion upon me, thou whose years do not fail! on me who have but a short time to live. I rise up, and am cut down as a flower. I flee as it were a shadow. Yet a little while and I return to dust, and have no more place under the sun. “Yet I know thou hast made my soul to live for ever; but I know not where, and I am unwilling to try. I tremble, I am afraid to go thither, whence I shall not return. I stand quivering on the edge of the gulf; for clouds and darkness rest upon it. O God!

O God! must I go always ‘creeping with terrors, and plunge into eternity with a peradventure l’ “O thou Lover of men, is there no help in thee? I have heard (what indeed my heart cannot conceive) that thou revealest thyself to those that seek thee, and pourest thy love into their hearts; and that they who know and love thee, walk through the shadow of death and fear no evil. O that this were so! that there was such an unspeakable gift given to the children of men I for then might I hope for it. O God, if there be, give it unto me ! Speak, that I may see thee! Make thyself known unto me also in the manner that thou knowest ! In anywise, let me know thee, and love thee, that I may be formed after thy likeness | That I may be love, as thou art love; that I may now be happy in thee; and, when thou wilt, fall into the abyss of thy love, and enjoy thee

And I am bold to affirm, that these unlettered men have help from God for that great work,-the saving souls from death; seeing he hath enabled, and doth enable them still, to “turn many to righteousness.” Thus hath he “destroyed the wisdom of the wise, and brought to nought the understanding of the prudent.” When they imagined they had effectually shut the door, and locked up every passage whereby any help could come to two or three Preachers, weak in body as well as soul, who they might reasonably believe would, humanly speaking, wear themselves out in a short time;--when they had gained their point by securing, as they supposed, all the men of learn ing in the nation, “He that sitteth in heaven laughed them to scorn,” and came upon them by a way they thought not of. “Out of the stones he raised up ’’ those who should beget “children to Abraham.” We had no more foresight of this than you: Nay, we had the deepest prejudices against it; until we could not but own that God gave “wisdom from above ’’ to these unlearned and ignorant men, so that the work of the Lord prospered intheir hand, and sinners were daily converted to God. Indeed, in the one thing which they profess to know, they are not ignorant men. I trust there is not one of them who is not able to go through such an examination, in substantial, prac tical, experimental Divinity, as few of our candidates for holy orders, even in the University, (I speak it with sorrow and shame, and in tender love,) are able to do. But, O! what man ner of examination do most of those candidates go through! and what proof are the tesimonials commonly brought, (as solemn as the form is wherein they run,) either of their piety or know ledge to whom are entrusted those sheep which God hath purchased with his own blood | 11. “But they are laymen. You seem to be sensible your self of the strength of this objection. For as many as you have answered, I observe you have never once so much as touched on this.” I have not. Yet it was not distrust of my cause, but tender ness to you, which occasioned my silence.

Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is by the testi mony of competent witnesses; and these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. Or, would you have us prove by miracles, (4.) That this was not done by our own power or holiness? that God only is able to raise the dead, those who are dead in trespasses and sins? Nay, if you “hear not Moses and the Prophets” and Apostles, on this head, neither would you believe, “though one rose from the dead.” It is therefore utterly unreasonable and absurd to require or expect the proof of miracles, in questions of such a kind as are always decided by proofs of quite another nature. 29. “But you relate them yourself.” I relate just what I saw, from time to time: And this is true, that some of those circumstances seem to go beyond the ordinary course of nature. But I do not peremptorily determine, whether they were supernatural or no; much less do I rest upon them either the proof of other facts, or of the doctrines which I preach. I prove these in the ordinary way; the one by testimony, the other by Scripture and reason. “But if you can work miracles when you please, is not this the surest way of proving them? This would put the matter out of dispute at once, and supersede all other proof.” You seem to lie under an entire mistake, both as to the nature and use of miracles. It may reasonably be questioned, whether there ever was that man living upon earth, except the man Christ Jesus, that could work miracles when he pleased. God only, when he pleased, exerted that power, and by whomsoever it pleased him. But if a man could work miracles when he pleased, yet there is no Scripture authority, nor even example, for doing it in order to satisfy such a demand as this. I do not read that either our Lord, or any of his Apostles, wrought any miracle on such an occasion.

I do not read that either our Lord, or any of his Apostles, wrought any miracle on such an occasion. Nay, how sharply does our Lord rebuke those who made a demand of this kind ' When “certain of the Scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee;” (observe, this was their method of answering the strong reasons whereby he had just proved the works in question to be of God!) “he answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; but there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the Pro phet Jonas.” (Matt. xii. 38, 39.) “An evil and adulterous generation l’” else they would not have needed such a kind of proof. Had they been willing to do his will, they would, without this, have known that the doctrine was of God. Miracles, therefore, are quite needless in such a case. Nor are they so conclusive a proof as you imagine. If a man could and did work them in defence of any doctrine, yet this would not supersede other proof; for there may be tepata \revôovs, “lying wonders,” miracles wrought in support of falsehood. Still, therefore, his doctrine would remain to be proved from the proper topics of Scripture and reason: And these even without miracles are sufficient; but miracles without these are not. Accordingly, our Saviour and all his Apostles, in the midst of their greatest miracles, never failed to prove every doctrine they taught by clear Scripture and cogent reason. 30. I presume, by this time you may perceive the gross absurdity of demanding miracles in the present case; seeing one of the propositions in question, (over and above our gene ral doctrines) viz., “That sinners are reformed,” can only be proved by testimony; and the other, “This cannot be done but by the power of God,” necds no proof, being self-evident. “Why, I did once myself rejoice to hear,” says a grave citi zen, with an air of great importance, “that so many sinners were reformed, till I found they were only turned from one wickedness to another; that they were turned from cursing or swearing, or drunkenness, into a mo less damnable sin, that of schism.” Do you know what you say?

Think of this, all that love your country, or that care for your own souls. If now especially you do not think of this one thing, you have no excuse before God or man. 5. Little more excuse have you who are still in doubt con cerning this day of your visitation. For you have all the proof that you can reasonably expect or desire, all that the nature of the thing requires. That in many places, abundance of noto rious sinners are totally reformed, is declared by a thousand eye and ear witnesses both of their present and past behaviour. And you are sensible, the proof of such a point as this must, in the nature of things, rest upon testimony. And that God alone is able to work such areformation, you know all the Scrip tures testify. What would you have more? What pretence can you have for doubting any longer? You have not the least room to expect or desire any other or any stronger evidence. I trust you are not of those who fortify themselves against conviction; who are resolved they will never believe this. They ask, “Who are these men?” We tell them plainly; but they credit us not. Another and another of their own friends is convinced, and tells them the same thing. But their answer is ready, “Are you turned Methodist too?” So their testimony likewise goes for nothing. Now, how is it possible these should ever be convinced? for they will believe none but those who speak on one side. 6. Do you delay fixing your judgment till you see a work of God, without any stumbling-block attending it? That never was yet, nor ever will. “It must needs be that offences will come.” And scarce ever was there such a work of God before, with so few as have attended this. When the Reformation began, what mountainous offences lay in the way of even the sincere members of the Church of Rome! They saw such failings in those great men, Luther and Calvin Their vehement tenaciousness of their own opinions; their bitterness toward all who differed from them; their impatience of contradiction, and utter want of forbear ance, even with their own brethren.

A. They generally allow, that many believers have such an assurance; and, that it is to be desired and prayed for by all But then they affirm, that this is the highest species or degree of faith; that it is not the common privilege of believers: Consequently, they deny that this is justifying faith, or neces sarily implied therein.- Q. 3. And are there not strong reasons for their opinion? For instance: If the true believers of old had not this assur ance, then it is not necessarily implied in justifying faith. But the true believers of old had not this assurance. A. David, and many more of the believers of old, undenia bly had this assurance. But even if the Jews had it not, it would not follow that this is not implied in Christian faith. Q. 4. But do you not know that the Apostles themselves had it not till after the day of Pentecost? A. The Apostles themselves had not the proper Christian faith till after the day of Pentecost. Q. 5. But were not those Christian believers, in the proper sense, to whom St. John wrote his First Epistle? Yet to these he says, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (v. 13.) A. This does not prove that they did not know they had eternal life, any more than that they did not believe. His plain meaning is, “I have written unto you that you may be the more established in the faith.” Therefore, it does not follow from hence, that they had not this assurance; but only that there are degrees therein. Q. 6. But were not the Thessalonians true believers? Yet they had not this assurance; they had only a “good hope.” (2 Thess. ii. 16.) A. The text you refer to runs thus: “Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.” This good hope does not exclude, but necessarily implies, a strong assurance of the love of God. Q. 7. But does not St.

But does not St. Paul say even of himself, “I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified?” (1 Cor inthians iv. 4.) A. He does not say of himself here, that he was not justified, or that he did not know it; but only, that though he had a conscience void of offence, yet this did not justify him before God. And must not every believer say the same? This, there fore, is wide of the point. Q. 8. But does he not disclaim any such assurance in those words, “I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling?” (1 Cor. ii. 3.) A. By no means. For these words do not imply any fear either of death or hell. They express only a deep sense of his utter insufficiency for the great work wherein he was engaged. Q. 9. However, does he not exclude Christians in general from such an assurance, when he bids them “work out” their “salvation with fear and trembling?” (Phil. ii. 12.) A. No more than from love; which is always joined with filial fear and reverential trembling. And the same answer is applicable to all those texts which exhort a believer to fear. Q. 10. But does not matter of fact prove, that justifying faith does not necessarily imply assurance? For can you believe that such a person as J. A., or E. V., who have so much integrity, zeal, and fear of God, and walk so unblamably in all things, is void of justifying faith? Can you suppose such as these to be under the wrath and under the curse of God; especially if you add to this, that they are continually long ing, striving, praying for the assurance which they have not? A. This contains the very strength of the cause; and in clines us to think that some of these may be exempt cases. But, however that be, we answer, (1.) It is dangerous to ground a general doctrine on a few particular experiments. (2.) Men may have many good tempers, and a blameless life, (speaking in a loose sense,) by nature and habit, with prevent ing grace; and yet not have faith and the love of God. (3.) It is scarce possible for us to know all the circum stances relating to such persons, so as to judge certainly con cerning them.

P., &c., their heirs and assigns for ever. NEvERTHELEss, upon special trust and confidence, and to the intent, that they and the survivors of them, and the Trustees for the time being, do and shall permit John Wesley, of the City-Road, London, Clerk, and such other persons as he shall from time to time appoint, at all times, during his natural life, and no other persons, to have and enjoy the free use and benefit of the said premises; that the said John Wesley, and such other persons as he appoints, may therein preach and expound God’s holy word. And after his decease, upon further trust and confidence, and to the intent, that the said T. P., &c., or the major part of them, or the survivors of them, and the major part of the Trustees of the said premises for the time being, shall, from time to time, and at all times for ever, permit such persons as shall be appointed at the yearly Conference of the people called Methodists, in London, Bristol, Leeds, Manchester, or else where, specified by name in a Deed enrolled in Chancery, under the hand and seal of the said John Wesley, and bearing date the 28th day of February, 1784, and no others, to have and to enjoy the said premises, for the purposes aforesaid: Provided always, that the persons preach no other doctrine than is con tained in Mr. Wesley's ‘Notes upon the New Testament, and four volumes of ‘Sermons. And upon farther trust and confi dence, that, as often as any of these Trustees, or the Trustees for the time being, shall die, or cease to be a member of the society commonly called Methodists, the rest of the said Trus tees, or of the Trustees for the time being, as soon as conveni ently may be, shall and may choose another Trustee or Trus tees, in order to keep up the number of Trustees for ever. In witness whereof, the said B. H. hath hereunto set his hand and seal, the day and year above-written.” In this form the proprietors of the House are to make it over to five, seven, or nine Trustees. Q. 62. But is this form a safe one? Should we not have the opinion of a Counsel upon it? A.

The justness of some of your remarks, if I mistake not, has been pretty fully disproved. As to what you speak of my art, sub tlety, and so on, in this and many other places, I look upon it as neither better nor worse than a civil way of calling names. “‘To this multitude of crimes I am also an utter stranger.’ Then you have charged them wrongfully. What do you account guile?” &c. (Second Letter, p. 84.) I account guile, despising self-denial even in the smallest points, and teaching that those who have not the assurance of faith may not use the ordinances of God, the Lord's Supper in particular, (this is the real, un aggravated charge,) to be faults which cannot be excused. But I do not account them all together “a multitude of crimes.” I conceive this is a vehement hyperbole. “The honour of religion,” said you, “and virtue trampled apon:” I answered, “By whom ? Not by the Moravians.” You reply, “And yet you have accused some of these as decry ing all the means of grace.” No. What I accused them of, was, teaching that an unbeliever (in their sense) ought to abstain from them. “Neither did I know, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people.’ Your Journal is before the world; to whom I appeal whether this has not so repre sented them.” But how do you here represent your remark, and my answer? My paragraph runs thus:-- “You go on, “How could you so long, and so intimately, converse with such desperately wicked people as the Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be?” O Sir, what another assertion is this ! “The Moravians, ac cording to your own account, were known by you to be desperately wicked people, while you intimately conversed with them !’ Utterly false and injurious! I never gave any such account. I conversed with them intimately both at Savannah and Hernhuth. But neither then, nor at any other time, did I know, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people: I think and say just the reverse; viz., that though I soon ‘found among them a few things which I could not ap prove, yet I believe they are, in the main, some of the best Chris tians in the world.

5. You next “take the pains to lay before the reader an instance or two of confusion,” &c. The first I read thus: “While we were at the room, Mrs. J., sitting at home, took the Bible to read; but on a sudden threw it away, saying, “I am good enough. I will never read or pray more. She was in the same mind when I came; often repeating, “I used to think I was full of sin, and that I sinned in every thing I did. But now I know better; I am a good Christian; I never did any harm in my life; I do not desire to be any better than I am. She spake many things to the same effect, plainly showing that the spirit of pride and of lies had the full dominion over her. I asked, “Do you desire to be healed?” She said, ‘I am whole.’ ‘But do you desire to be saved ?” She replied, ‘I am saved, Iail nothing, I am happy.” “This is one of the fruits of the present salvation and sinless perfection taught by you among the weak and igno rant.” (Page 11.) I should wonder if the scarecrow of sinless perfection was not brought in some way or other. But to the point: You here repeat a relation as from me, and that “in confirmation,” you say, “ of your own veracity,” and yet leave out both the beginning of that relation, part of the middle, and the end of it. I begin thus: “Sun. 11.--I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil.” (Vol. I. p. 295.) These words, of all others, should not have been left out, being a key to all that follows. In the middle of the relation, immediately after the words, “I am happy,” I add, “Yet it was easy to discern she was in the most violent agony both of body and mind; sweating exceedingly, notwithstanding the severe frost, and not continuing in the same posture a moment: ”-- A plain proof that this was no instance of presumption, nor a natural fruit of any teaching whatever.

In the middle of the relation, immediately after the words, “I am happy,” I add, “Yet it was easy to discern she was in the most violent agony both of body and mind; sweating exceedingly, notwithstanding the severe frost, and not continuing in the same posture a moment: ”-- A plain proof that this was no instance of presumption, nor a natural fruit of any teaching whatever. It ends thus: “About a quarter before six the next morn ing, after lying quiet a while, she broke out, “Peace be unto thee” (her husband); ‘peace be unto this house; the peace of God is come to my soul; I know that my Redeemer liveth.’ And for several days her mouth was filled with his praise, and her talk was wholly of his wondrous works.” Had not these words been left out, neither could this have passed for an instance of despair. Though still I do not know but it might have stood for an instance of confusion, &c. I must not forget that this was cited at first as a proof of my enthusiasm; as an instance of a private revelation, “which,” you say, “I seem to pay great credit to,--representing the con jectures of a woman, whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophecy.” (Remarks, p. 64.) I answered, “Descant, Sir, as you please on this enthusiasm; on the credit I paid to this private revelation; and my representing the conjectures of this brain-sick woman as owing to a miraculous power of the Spirit of prophecy: And when you have done, I will desire you to read the passage once more; where you will find my express words are, introducing this account: ‘Sun. 11. I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil.” Such was the credit I paid to this revelation 1 All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God is, the enabling her to strive against the power of the devil, and at length restoring peace to her soul.” (Answer, page 408.) I was in hopes you had done with this instance. But I am disappointed: For in your Second Letter I read thus: “The instances of enthusiasm and presumption which your last Journal had furnished me with remain now to be reviewed.

I took upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any Steward of a society exerts by the consent of the other members. I did neither more nor less than declare, that they who had broken our rules were no longer of our society. “Can you pretend that you received this authority from our Church?” Not by ordination; for I did not exert it as a Priest; but as one whom that society had voluntarily chosen to be at the head of them. “Or that you exercised it in sub jection or subordination to her lawful Governors?” I think so; I am sure I did not exercise it in any designed opposition to them. “Did you ever think proper to consult or advise with them, about fixing the terms of your communion?” If you mean, about fixing the rules of admitting or excluding from our society, I never did think it either needful or proper. Nor do I at this day. “How then will you vindicate all these powers?” All these are, “declaring those are no longer of our society.” “Here is a manifest congregation. Either it belonged to the Church of England, or not. If it did not, you set up a separate commu nion against her. And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from her?” I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false: Therefore the consequent falls of course. “If it did belong to the Church, show where the Church gave you such authority of controlling and regulating it?” Authority of putting disorderly members out of that society? The society itself gave me that autho rity. “What private Clergyman can plead her commission to be thus a Judge and Ordinary, even in his own parish?” Any Clergyman or layman, without pleading her commis sion, may be thus a Judge and Ordinary. “Are not these powers inherent in her Governors, and committed to the higher order of her Clergy?” No; not the power of ex cluding members from a private society, -unless on supposi tion of some such rule as ours is, viz., “That if any man sepa rate from the Church, he is no longer a member of our society.” 7. But you have more proof yet: “The Grand Jury in Georgia found, that you had called yourself Ordinary of Savan nah.

But you have more proof yet: “The Grand Jury in Georgia found, that you had called yourself Ordinary of Savan nah. Nor was this fact contradicted even by those of the Jury who, you say, wrote in your favour: So that it appears, you have long had an inclination to be independent and uncontrolled.” This argument ought to be good; for it is far fetched. The plain case was this: That Grand Jury did assert, that, in Mr. Causton’s hearing, I had called myself Ordinary of Savannah. The minority of the Jury, in their letter to the Trustees, refuted the other allegations particularly; but thought this so idle an one, that they did not deign to give it any farther reply, than, “As to the eighth bill we are in doubt, as not well know ing the meaning of the word Ordinary.” See Wol. I. p. 59. You add, “I appeal to any reasonable man, whether you have not acted as an Ordinary, nay, a Bishop, in Kingswood.” If you mean, in “declaring those disorderly members were no longer of that society;” I admit your appeal, whether I therein acted as a Bishop, or as any Steward of a society may. “Nay, you have gone far beyond the generality of the Dissenters them selves; who do not commit the power of excommunication, and appointing to preach,” (that is anotherquestion,) “to the hands of any private Minister.” The power of excommunication. True; but this was not excommunication, but a quite different thing. How far, in what circumstances, and in what sense, I have “appointed men to preach,” I have explained at large in the Third Part of the “Farther Appeal.” But I wait for farther light; and am ready to consider, as I am able, whatever shall be replied to what is there advanced. 8. Your general conclusion is, “Whatever your pretences or professions may be, you can be looked upon by serious and impartial persons, not as a member, much less a Minister, of the Church of England, but as no other than an enemy to her constitution, worship, and doctrine, raising divisions and dis turbances in her communion.” (Ibid. p. 76.) “And yet you say, ‘I cannot have greater regard to her rules.” “I dare not renounce communion with her.’” (Ibid. p. 15.) I do say so still.

But I do not yet find that this is owing to my want of ‘considering things coolly and care fully.” Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take. Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants!” (Page 407.) You reply, “Your private life I have nothing to do with;” and then enlarge on my “method of consulting Scripture,” and of using lots;--of both which by and by. But meantime, observe, this does not affect the question: For I neither cast lots, nor use that method at all, till I have considered things with all the care I can. So that, be this right or wrong, it is no manner of proof that I do not “carefully consider every step I take.” But how little did I profit by begging your excuse, suppose I had spoken a word unguardedly ! O Sir, you put me in mind of him who said, “I know not how to show mercy!” You have need never to fight but when you are sure to conquer; seeing you are resolved neither to give nor take quarter. You remark, (7) “He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle supe rior to it,-the direction of God’s Spirit.” I answered, “I am very difficult to be convinced by dry blows or hard names, but not by reason or argument. At least that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention: For I claim no other direc tion of God’s Spirit than is common to all believers.” You reply, (1.) “I fear this will not be easily reconcilable to your past pretences and behaviour.” (Page 124.) I believe it will; in particular, to what I speak of the light I received from God in that important affair. (Vol. I. p. 46.) But as to the directions, in general, of the Spirit of God, we very probably differ in this: You apprehend those directions to be extraordi nary, which I suppose to be common to all believers. You remark, (8.) “Whoever opposes him will be charged with resisting or rejecting the Spirit.” I answered, “What! whoever opposes me, John Wesley?

The next ran thus: “Again, you say, “I expounded out of the fulness that was given me.’” (Remarks, p. 64.) I answered, “I mean, I had then a fuller, deeper sense of what I spoke than I ordinarily have.” (Page 409.) But if you still think, “it would have been more decent to have said, ‘According to the best of my power and ability, with God’s assistance, I expounded;’” I will say so another time. With regard to the third instance of enthusiasm, youremarked, “If you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing in it worthy of being related.” (Remarks, p. 64.) I answered, “It may be so. Let it pass, then, as a trifle not worth relating; but still it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as miraculous, but as a signal instance of God’s particular providence.” (Page 409.) How friendly and generous is your reply l--“You seem ashamed of it. I am glad you give this fooling up, and hope for the future you will treat your readers better.” (Second Letter, p. 131.) Sir, I am not ashamed of it; nor shall I ever give this fooling up, till I give up the Bible. I still look upon this “as a signal instance of God’s particular providence.” But “how is this con sistent with yielding it to be a trifle?” (Ibid. p. 132.) My words do not imply, that I yield it so to be. Being urged with the dilemma, “Either this is related as miraculous,” (and then it is enthusiasm,) “ or it is not worth relating; ” I answered, (to avoid drawing the saw of controversy,) “Let it pass, then, as a trifle not worth relating. But still” (if it be a trifle, which I suppose, not grant) “it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as miraculous.” And yet I believe I yielded too much, and what might too much favour your assertion, that “there is a great difference between particular providences and such extraordinary interpo sitions.” Pray, Sir, show me what this difference is. It is a subject that deserves your coolest thoughts. “I know no ground to hope or pray for such immediate reliefs. These things must be represented either as common accidents or as miracles.” I do not throughly understand your terms.

You remarked, “It will be difficult to persuade any sober person, that there is anything supernatural in these disorders.” (Remarks, p. 69.) The remainder of that paragraph I abridged thus: You attempt to account for those fits, by “obstructions or irregularities of the blood and spirits; hysterical disorders; watchings, fastings, closeness of rooms, great crowds, violent heat;” and lastly by “terrors, perplexities, and doubts, in weak and well-meaning men; which,” you think, “in many of the cases before us, have quite overset their understand ings.” (Remarks, p. 43.) Ianswered, “As to each of the rest, let it goas far as it can go.” (Let it be supposed to have some influence in some cases; per haps fully to account for one in a thousand.) “But I require proof of the last way whereby you would account for these disorders.” Why, “the instances,” you say, “ of religious madness have much increased since you began to disturb the world.” I doubt the fact. You reply, “This no way disproves it.” (Second Letter, p. 137.) Yes, it does, till you produce some proof. For a bare negation is the proper and sufficient answer to a bare affirmation. I add, “If these instances had increased daily, it is easy to account for them another way,” as is done in the First Part of the Farther Appeal, at the one hundred and thirty-first and following pages. You say, “Most have heard of or known several of the Methodists thus driven to distraction.” I answered, “You may have heard of five hun dred. But how many have you known P Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them, no, not one of them to this day, either man, woman, or child.” (Page 411.) You reply, “This” (the naming them) “would be very im proper and unnecessary.” Second Letter, p. 138.) However, Sir, it is extremely necessary that you should name them to me in private. I will then, if required, excuse you to the public; which till then I cannot do. The person I mentioned, whom you threw into much doubt and perplexity, then lived in the parish of St. Ann, West minster. I related the case just as she related it to me. But she is able and ready to answer for herself. 9.

(3.) That, with or without them, the proposition is false; unless so far as it coincides with that you reject. For it is the believing those to be miracles which are not, that constitutes an enthusiast; not the representing them one way or the other; unless so far as it implies such a belief. 12. Upon my answer to the syllogism first proposed, you ob serve, “Thus” (by denying the latter part of the minor) “you clear yourself from the charge of enthusiasm, by acknowledging the cures to be supernatural and miraculous. Why then would you not speak out, and directly say, that you can work real and undoubted miracles? This would put the controversy be tween you and your opposers on a short foot, and be an effectual proof of the truth of your pretences.” (Second Letter, p. 142.) V. l. I have in some measure explained myself on the head of miracles, in the Third Part of the Farther Appeal. But since you repeat the demand, (though without taking any notice of the arguments there advanced,) I will endeavour once more to give you a distinct, full, and determinate answer. And, (1.) I acknowledge that I have seen with my eyes, and heard with my ears, several things which, to the best of my judgment, cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of natural causes; and which I therefore believe ought to be “ascribed to the extraordinary interposition of God.” If any man choose to style these miracles, I reclaim not. I have dili gently inquired into the facts. I have weighed the preceding and following circumstances. I have strove to account for them in a natural way. I could not, without doing violence to my reason. Not to go far back, I am clearly persuaded, that the sudden deliverance of John Haydon was one in stance of this kind; and my own recovery, on May 10th, another. I cannot account for either of these in a natural way. Therefore I believe they were both supernatural. I must (2.) Observe, that the truth of these facts is sup ported by the same kind of proof, as that of all other facts is wont to be, namely, the testimony of competent witnesses; and that the testimony here is in as high a degree as any reasonable man can desire.

Permit me to remind you only of a few instances; and to observe that the argument holds a fortiori : For who will ever be impowered of God again to work such miracles as these were? Did Pharaoh look on all that Moses and Aaron wrought as an “effectual proof of the truth of their pretences?” ..even when “the Lord made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided;” when “the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall unto them on the right hand, and on the left?” (Exod. xiv. 21, 22.) Nay, The wounded dragon raged in vain; And, fierce the utmost plague to brave, Madly he dared the parted main, And sunk beneath the o’erwhelming wave. Was all this “an effectual proof of the truth of their pretences,” to the Israelites themselves? It was not. “They were” still “disobedient at the sea; even at the Red Sea !” Was the giving them day by day “bread from heaven,” “an effectual proof” to those “two hundred and fifty princes of the assem bly, famous in the congregation, men of renown,” who said, with Dathan and Abiram, “Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up?” (Numbers xvi. 14;) nay, “when the ground clave asunder that was under them; and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up?” (Verse 32.) Neither was this an “effectual proof” to those who saw it with their eyes, and heard the cry of those that went down into the pit; but, the very next day, they “mur mured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord!” (Verse 41.) Was not the case generally the same with regard to the Pro phets that followed? several of whom “stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire,” did many mighty works; yet their own people received them not. Yet “they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword;” they were “destitute, afflicted, tormented !” utterly contrary to the commonly received supposition, that the work ing real, undoubted miracles must bring all controversy to an end, and convince every gainsayer. Let us come nearer yet. How stood the case between our Lord himself and his opposers? Did he not work “real and undoubted miracles?” And what was the effect?

Did he not work “real and undoubted miracles?” And what was the effect? Still, when “he came to his own, his own received him not.” Still “he was despised and rejected of men.” Still it was a challenge not to be answered: “Have any of the rulers or of the Phari sees believed on him?” After this, how can you imagine, that whoever works miracles must convince “all men of the truth of his pretences?” I would just remind you of only one instance more: “There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked. The same heard Paul speak; who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiv ing that he had faith to be healed, said, with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.” Here was so undoubted a miracle, that the people “lifted up their voices, saying, The Gods are come down in the likeness of men.” But how long were even these convinced of the truth of his pretences? Only till “there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium;’ and then they stoned him (as they supposed) to death ! (Acts xiv. 8, &c.) So certain it is, that no miracles whatever, which were ever yet wrought in the world, were effectual to prove the most glaring truth, to those that hardened their hearts against it. 4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. “If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be’” con vinced of what they desire not to believe, “though one rose from the dead.” Without a miracle, without one rising from the dead, eav tis 6exy to 6exmua avtov Troueuv, “if any man be willing to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.” But if he is not willing to do his will, he will never want an excuse, a plausible reason, for rejecting it. Yea, though ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it.

At length we have a distinct reply: “Wise and sober men will not otherwise be convinced,” (that is, un less you prove this by miracles,) “that God is, by the means of such Teachers, and such doctrines, working a great and extraordinary work in the earth.” (Preface, p. 6.) So then the determinate point which you, in their name, call upon us to prove by miracles, is this, “that God is, by these Teachers, working a great and extraordinary work in the ..earth.” What I mean by “a great and extraordinary work” is, the bringing multitudes of gross notorious sinners, in a short space, to the fear, and love, and service of God, to an entire change of heart and life. Now, then, let us take a nearer view of the proposition, and see which part of it we are to prove by miracles. “Is it, (1.) That A. B. was, for many years, without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, a Sabbath-breaker? “Or, (2.) That he is not so now? “Or, (3.) That he continued so till he heard these men preach; and from that time was another man? “Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is, by the testimony of competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. “Or would you have us prove by miracles, (4.) That this was not done by our own power or holiness? that God only is able to raise the dead, to quicken those who are dead in trespasses and sins?” Surely no. Whosoever believes the Scriptures will want no new proof of this. Where then is the wisdom of those men who demand miracles in proof of such a proposition ? one branch of which, “that such sinners were reformed by the means of these Teachers,” being a plain fact, can only be proved by testimony, as all other facts are; and the other, “That this is a work of God, and a great and more than ordinary work,” needs no proof, as carrying its own evidence to every thinking man. 8.

Wesley went so far to gather such materials together, let us see what was the system (or rather the medley) of principles he had to return with to England.” “OF THE AssuBANCE OF JUSTIFICATION. “I BELIEVE that conversion is an instantaneous work; and that the moment a man is converted, or has living faith in Christ, he is justified: Which faith a man cannot have, with out knowing that he hath it. “Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (that is, that he has living faith) till a long time after. “I believe, also, that the moment a man is justified he has peace with God. “Which he cannot have without knowing that he has it. “Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (that is, that he has peace with God) till a long time after. “I believe, when a man is justified he is born of God. “And being born of God, he sinneth not. “Which deliverance from sin he cannot have without knowing it. “Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (that is, delivered from sin) till a long time after. “Though I believe that others may know that he is justified, by his power over sin, his seriousness, and love of the brethren.” “I BELIEVE that Christ ‘formed in us,’ subordinately to Christ ‘given for us,’ (that is, our own inherent righteousness subordinate to Christ’s merits,) ought to be insisted upon, as necessary to our justification. “And it is just and right that a man should be humble and penitent, and have a broken and contrite heart, (that is, should have Christ formed in him,) before he can expect to be justified. “And that this penitence and contrition is the work of the Holy Ghost. “Yet I believe that all this is nothing towards, and has no influence on, our justification. “Again, I believe that, in order to justification, I must go straight to Christ, with all my ungodliness, and plead nothing else. “Yet I believe that we should not insist upon anything we do or feel, as if it were necessary previous to justification.” 24. “OF THE EFFECTs OF JUSTIFICATION. “I BELIEVE that justification is the same thing as to be born of God.

“I BELIEVE that justification is the same thing as to be born of God. Yet a man may have a strong assurance that he is justified, and not be able to affirm that he is born of God. “A man may be fully assured that his sins are forgiven, yet may not be able to tell the hour or day when he received this full assurance, because it may grow up in him by degrees. Though he can remember that, from the time this full assurance was confirmed in him, he never lost it, no, not for a moment. “A man may have a weak faith at the same time that he hath peace with God, not one uneasy thought, and freedom from sin, not one unholy desire. “A man may be justified, that is, born of God, who has not a clean heart, that is, is not sanctified. “He may be justified, that is, born of God, and not have the indwelling of the Spirit.” 25. I entirely agree, “that the foregoing creed is a very extraordinary and odd composition.” But it is not mine: I neither composed it, nor believe it; as, I doubt not, every im partial reader will be fully convinced, when we shall have gone over it, once more, step by step. The parts of it which I do believe I shall barely repeat: On the others it will be needful to add a few words. “OF THE AssURANCE OF JUSTIFICATION. “I BELIEVE that conversion,” meaning thereby justification, “is an instantaneous work; and that the moment a man has living faith in Christ, he is converted or justified.” (So the proposition must be expressed to make it sense.) “Which faith he cannot have, without knowing that he has it.” “Yet I believe he may not know that he has it till long after.” This I deny: I believe no such thing. “I believe the moment a man is justified he has peace with God: “Which he cannot have without knowing that he has it.” “Yet I believe he may not know he has it till long after.” This again I deny. I believe it not; nor Michael Linner neither; to clear whom entirely, one need only read his own words: “About fourteen years ago, I was more than ever convinced that I was wholly different from what God required me to be.

I believe it not; nor Michael Linner neither; to clear whom entirely, one need only read his own words: “About fourteen years ago, I was more than ever convinced that I was wholly different from what God required me to be. I consulted his word again and again; but it spoke nothing but condemnation; till at last I could not read, nor indeed do any thing else, having no hope and no spirit left in me. I had been in this state for several days, when, being musing by myself, those words came strongly into my mind, “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all who believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ I thought, ‘All ! Then I am one. Then He is given for me. But I am a sinner: And he came to save sinners.’ Immedi ately my burden dropped off, and my heart was at rest. “But the full assurance of faith I had not yet, nor for the two years I continued in Moravia. When I was driven out thence by the Jesuits, I retired hither, and was soon after received into the Church. And here, after some time, it pleased our Lord to manifest himself more clearly to my soul; and give me that full sense of acceptance in him, which excludes all doubt and fear. “Indeed, the leading of the Spirit is different in different souls. His more usual method, I believe, is, to give, in one and the same moment, forgiveness of sins, and a full assurance of that forgiveness. Yet in many he works as he did in me; giving first the remission of sins, and after some weeks, or months, or years, the full assurance of it.” (Vol. I. p. 128.) All I need observe is, that the first sense of forgiveness is often mixed with doubt or fear. But the full assurance of faith excludes all doubt and fear, as the very term implies. Therefore, instead of, “He may not know that he has peace with God till long after,” it should be, (to agree with Michael Linner’s words,) “He may not have, till long after, the full assurance of faith, which excludes all doubt and fear.” “I believe a man is justified at the same time that he is born of God.

Your humilia tion has no influence on that.” Not as a cause; so the very last words explain it. “Again, I believe that in order to obtain justification, I must go straight to Christ, with all my ungodliness, and plead nothing else.” “Yet I believe we should not insist on anything we door feel, as if it were necessary previous to justification.” No, nor on anything else. So the whole tenor of Christian David’s words implies. 27. “I believe a man may have a strong assurance he is jus tified, and not be able to affirm he is a child of God.” Feder’s words are these: “I found my heart at rest, in good hope that mysins were forgiven; of which I had a stronger assur ance six weeks after.” (True, comparatively stronger, though still mixed with doubt and fear.) “But I dare not affirm, I am a child of God.” I see no inconsistency in all this. Many such instances I know at this day. I myself was one for some time. “A man may be fully assured that his sins are forgiven, yet may not be able to tell the day when he received this full assur ance; because it grew up in him by degrees.” (Of this also I know a few other instances.) “But from the time this full assurance was confirmed in him, he never lost it.” Very true, and, I think, consistent. Neuser's own words are, “In him I found true rest to my soul, being fully assured that all my sins were forgiven. Yet I cannot tell the hour or day when I first received that full assurance. For it was not given me at first, neither at once;” (not in its fulness;) “but grew up in me by degrees. And from the time it was confirmed in me, I have never lost it, having never since doubted, no, not for a moment.” “A man may have a weak faith, at the same time that he has peace with God, and no unholy desires.” A man may be justified, who has not a clean heart. 28. (11.) Not in the full sense of the word. This I doverily believe is sound divinity, agreeable both to Scripture and ex perience. And I believe it is consistent with itself.

To the first of these propositions you object, “that justi fication is not only two-fold, but manifold. For a man may possibly sin many times, and as many times be justified or for given.” (Remarks, pp. 37-39.) I grant it. I grant also, that justification sometimes means a state of acceptance with God. But all this does not in the least affect my assertion, that “that justification which is spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and by our Church in the Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Articles, is not our acquittal at the last day, but the present remission of our sins.” You add, “You write in other places so variously about this matter, that I despair to find any consistency. Once you held ‘a degree of justifying faith short of the full assurance of faitk, the abiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him;’ and yet you afterwards “warned all not to think they were justified before they had a clear assur ance, that God had forgiven their sins. What difference there is between this clear assurance, and the former full assurance and clear perception, I know not.” (Page 40.) Let us go on step by step, and you will know. “Once you held ‘a degree of justifying faith, short of the full assurance of faith, the abiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him.’” And so I hold still, and have done for some years. “And yet you afterwards warned all not to think they were justified before they had a clear assurance that God had forgiven their sins.” I did so. “What difference there is between this clear assurance, and that full assurance and clear perception, Iknow not.” Sir, I will tell you. The one is an assurance that my sins are forgiven, clear at first, but soon clouded with doubt or fear. The other is such a plero phory or full assurance that I am forgiven, and so clear a per ception that Christ abideth in me, as utterly excludes all doubt and fear, and leaves them no place, no, not for an hour. So that the difference between them is as great as the difference be tween the light of the morning and that of the mid-day sun. 9.

One more I have since found in the same state: But observe, neither of these continued therein; nor did I ever know one that did. So sure it is that all faith is the gift of God, which the moment he withdraws, the evil heart of un belief will poison the whole soul.” (Ibid. p. 294.) Which of these is an “instance of the most desperate despair?” Surely the most desperate of any, yea, the only one which is properly said to be desperate at all, is that which produces instant self-murder; which causes a poor wretch, by a sin which he cannot repent of, to rush straight through death into hell. But that was not the case in any of these instances; in all which we have already seen the end of the Lord. 15. That I “raise separate societies against the Church,” (Remarks, p. 14,) is a charge which I need not examine till the evidence is produced. You next cite a Moravian's words to me: (an Englishman joined with the Moravians:) “You have eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin; you take upon you to guide unstable souls, and lead them in the way of damna tion;” and remark, “This is only returning some of your own treatment upon yourself. Here also you set the pattern.” At what time and place, when and where, were “such abuses as these thrown out by me against our Universities, and against our regular Clergy, not the highest or the worthiest excepted?” I am altogether clear in this matter, as often as it has been objected: Neither do I desire to receive any other treatment from the Clergy, than they have received from me to this day. You have a note at the bottom of this page which runs thus: “See pages 71, 77, and 73," where some Methodists said they had heard both your brother and you many times preach Popery.” I am afraid you advance here a wilful untruth, purely ad movendam invidiam.t. For you cannot but know, (1.) That there is not one word of preaching Popery, either in page 71 or 77. And (2.) That when Mr. C. and two other Predestinarians (as is related page 73) affirmed they had heard both my brother and me many times preach Popery, they meant neither more nor less thereby than the doctrine of universal redemption. 16.

And in proportion to its getting ground, it has never failed to per plex the weak, to harden the wicked, and to please the profane. Your Journal is a proof that these terrible consequences have of late prevailed, perhaps more than ever.” (Page 51.) Sup pose that Journal gives a true account of facts, (which you seem not to deny,) could you find there no other fruits of my preaching, than these terrible ones you here mention? O who so blind, as he that will not see! 18. But that we may not still talk at large, let us bring this question into as narrow a compass as possible. Let us go no farther as to time, than seven years last past; as to place, than London and the parts adjoining; as to persons, than you and me, Thomas Church preaching one doctrine, John Wesley the other. Now then, let us consider with meekness and fear, what have been the consequences of each doctrine. You have preached justification by faith and works, at Bat tersea, and St. Ann’s, Westminster; while I preached justifica tion by faith alone, near Moorfields, and at Short's Gardens. I beseech you then to consider, in the secret of your heart, how many sinners have you converted to God? By their fruits we shall know them. This is a plain rule. By this test let them be tried. How many outwardly and habitually wicked men have you brought to uniform habits of outward holiness? It is an awful thought ! Can you instance in a hundred? in fifty? in twenty? in ten? If not, take heed unto yourself and to your doctrine. It cannot be that both are right before God. Consider now (I would not speak, but I dare not refrain) what have been the consequences of even my preaching the other doctrine. By the fruits shall we know those of whom I speak; even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience the gos pel I preach to be the power of God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard, that was, is now temperate in all things. The whoremonger now flees fornication. He that stole, steals no more, but works with his hands. He that cursed or swore, perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with reverence.

To represent the conjectures of a woman, whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophecy!” Descant, Sir, as you please on this enthusiasm; on the credit I paid to this private revelation; and my representing the conjectures of this brain-sick woman as owing to the miraculous power of the Spirit of God: And when you have done, I will desire you to read that passage once more, where you will find my express words are, introducing this account: “Sunday, 11. I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil.” (Vol. I. p. 295.) Such was the credit I paid to this revelation 1 All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God is, the enabling her to strive against the power of the devil and at length restoring peace to her soul. 8. As a second instance of enthusiasm, you cite those words: “I expounded out of the fulness which was given me.” (Ibid. p. 295.) The whole sentence is, “Out of the fulness that was given me, I expounded those words of St. Paul, (indeed of every true believer,) ‘To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” I mean, I had then a fuller, deeper sense of that great truth, than I ordinarily have. And I still think it right to ascribe this, not to myself, but to the “Giver of every good and perfect gift.” You relate what follows as a third “very extraordinary in stance of enthusiasm:” (Remarks, p. 65 :) “Tuesday, Feb. 17. I left London. In the afternoon, I reached Oxford; and leaving my horse there, (for he was tired, and the horse-road exceeding bad, and my business admitted of no delay,) set out on foot for Stanton-Harcourt. The night overtook me in about an hour, accompanied with heavy rain. Being wet and weary, and not well knowing my way, I could not help saying in my heart, (though ashamed of mywant of resignation to God’s will,) “O that thou wouldest stay the bottles of heaven l or at least give me light, or an honest guide, or some help in the manner thou knowest.

“Corporal severities or mortification by tormenting the flesh,” (page 31,) is the next thing you charge upon me. Almost two sentences you bring in proof of this. The one, “Our bed being wet,” (it was in a storm at sea,) “I laid me down on the floor, and slept soued till morning; and I believe I shall not find it needful to go to bed, as it is called, any more.” But whether I do or not, how will you prove, that my motive is, to “gain a reputation for sanctity?” I desire (if it be not too great a favour) a little evidence for this. The other fragment of a sentence speaks “of bearing cold on the naked head, rain and wind, frost and snow.” (Page 32.) True; but not as matter of “mortification, by tormenting the flesh.” Nothing less. These things are not spoken of there as voluntary instances of mortification; (you yourself know perfectly well, they are not, only you make free with your friend;) but as some of the unavoidable inconveniences which attend preaching in the open air. Therefore you need not be so “sure that the Apostle con demns that abetöta aouatos, “not sparing the body, as useless and superstitious; and that it is a false show of humility.” (Page 33.) Humility is entirely out of the question, as well as chastity, in the case of hardships endured (but not properly chosen) out of love to the souls for which Christ died. 15. You add a word or two of my “ardent desire of going to hell,” which, you think, I “adopted from the Jesuit Nierem berg.” (Page 34.) Sir, I know not the man. I am wholly a stranger both to his person and to his doctrine. But if this is his doctrine, I disclaim it from my heart. I ardently desire, that both you and I may go to heaven. But “Mr. Wesley says, “A poor old man decided the ques tion of disinterested love. He said, I do not care what place I am in. Let God put me where he will, or do with me what he will, so I may set forth his honour and glory.’” (Page 35.) He did so. And what then? Do these words imply “an ardent desire of going to hell?” I do not suppose the going to hell ever entered into his thoughts.

For you had before you, while you wrote, the very tract wherein I corrected Mr. Bedford’s mistake, and explicitly declared, “The assurance whereof I speak is not an assurance of salva tion.” And the very passages you cite from me prove the same; every one of which (as you yourself know in your own conscience) relates wholly and solely to present pardon, not to future salvation. Of Christian perfection (page 45) I shall not say anything to you, till you have learned a little heathen honesty. 22. That this is a lesson you have not yet learned, appears, also, from your following section; wherein you roundly affirm, “Whatever they think, say, or do,” (that is, the Methodists, according to their own account,) “is from God. And whatever opposeth is from the devil.” I doubt not but Mr. Church believed this to be true when he asserted it. But this is no plea for you; who, having read the answer to Mr. Church, still assert what you know to be false. “Here we have,” say you, “the true spirit and very essence of enthusiasm, which sets men above carnal reason ing, and all conviction of plain Scripture.” (Page 49.) It may, or may not; that is nothing to me. I am not above either reason or Scripture. To either of these I am ready to submit. But I cannot receive scurrilous invective, instead of Scripture; nor pay the same regard to low buffoonery, as to clear and cogent reasons. 23. With your two following pages I have nothing to do. But in the fifty-second I read as follows: “‘A Methodist,’ says Mr. Wesley, ‘went to receive the sacrament; when God was pleased to let him see a crucified Saviour.” Very well; and what is this brought to prove? Why, (1.) That I am an enthusiast: (2.) That I “encourage the notion of the real, corporal presence, in the sacrifice of the mass.” How so? Why, “this is as good an argument for transubstantiation as several produced by Bellarmine.” (Page 57.) Very likely it may; and as good as several produced by you for the enthusiasm of the Methodists. 24. In that “seraphic rhapsody of divine love,” as you term it, which you condemn in the lump, as rant and mad Aness, there are several scriptural expressions, both from the Old and New Testament.

In that “seraphic rhapsody of divine love,” as you term it, which you condemn in the lump, as rant and mad Aness, there are several scriptural expressions, both from the Old and New Testament. At first I imagined you did not know them; those being books which you did not seem to be much acquainted with. But upon laying circumstances together, I rather suppose you was glad of so handsome an opportunity to make as if you aimed at me, that you might have a home stroke at some of those old enthusiasts. 25. The next words which you cite from me, as a proof of my enthusiasm, are, “The power of God was in an unusual manner present.” (Page 61.) I mean, many found an unusual degree of that peace, joy, and love, which St. Paul terms, “the fruit of the Spirit.” And all these, in conformity to his doctrine, I ascribe to the power of God. I know you, in conformity to your principles, ascribe them to the power of nature. But I still believe, according to the old, scriptural hypothesis, that whenever, in hearing the word of God, men are filled with peace and love, God “confirms that word by the Holy Ghost given unto those that hear it.” 26. As a further proof of my enthusiasm you mention “special directions, mission, and calls by immediate revela tion.” (Page 67.) For an instance of which, you cite those words, “I know, and am assured, that God sent forth his light and his truth.” I did know this. But do I say, “by immediate revelation?” Not a tittle about it. This is your own ingenious improvement upon my words. “However, it was by a special direction. For your own words in the same paragraph are, “From the direction I received from God this day, touching an affair of the greatest importance.’” (Pages 68, 69.) What, are these words in the same paragraph with those, “I know and am assured, God sent forth his light and his truth?” Why then do you tear the paragraph in two, and put part in your sixty-seventh, part in your sixty-eighth and sixty-ninth pages? O, for a plain reason,-to make it look like two instances of enthusiasm, otherwise it could have made but one at the most.

A Letter to the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Gloucester Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 9 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- My Lord, YoUR Lordship well observes, “To employ buffoonery in the service of religion is to violate the majesty of truth, and to deprive it of a fair hearing. To examine, men must be serious.” * Such as escaped my notice; or such as may be placed to the account of human infirmity. (Preface, p. 11.) I will endeavour to be so in all the following pages; and the rather, not only because I am writing to a person who is so far, and in so many respects, my superior, but also because of the importance of the subject: For is the question only, What I am? a madman, or a man in his senses? a knave, or an honest man? No; this is only brought in by way of illustration. The question is, of the office and opera tion of the Holy Spirit; with which the doctrine of the new birth, and indeed the whole of real religion, is connected. On a subject of so deep concern, I desire to be serious as death. But, at the same time, your Lordship will permit me to use great plainness. And this I am the more emboldened to do, because by naming my name, your Lordship, as it were, condescends to meet me on even ground. I shall consider, First, what your Lordship advances con cerning me: and, Then, what is advanced concerning the operations of the Holy Spirit. I. First. Concerning me. It is true I am here dealing in crambe repetita,” reciting objections which have been urged and answered a hundred times. But as your Lordship is pleased to repeat them again, I am obliged to repeat the answers. Your Lordship begins: “If the false prophet pretend to some extraordinary measure of the Spirit, we are directed to try that spirit by James iii. 17.” (Page 117.) I answer, 1. (as I have done many times before,) I do not pretend to any extraordinary measure of the Spirit. I pretend to no other measure of it than may be claimed by every Christian Minis ter. 2. Where are we directed to “try Prophets” by this text? How does it appear that it was given for any such purpose?

chargeable therewith. “To know the true character of Methodism.” The present point is, to know the true character of John Wesley. Now, in order to know this, we need not inquire what others were before he was born. All therefore that follows, of old Precisians, Puritans, and Independents, may stand just as it is. (Pages 184-186.) But “Mr. W. wanted to be persecuted.” (Page 187.) As this is averred over and over, I will explain myself upon it, once for all. I never desired or wanted to be persecuted. Lives there who loves his pain? I love and desire to “live peaceably with all men.” “But persecution would not come at his call.” However, it came uncalled; and, more than once or twice, it was not “mock persecution.” It was not only the huzzas of the mob; showers of stones are something more than huzzas. And whosoever saw the mob either at Walsal or Cork, (to instance in no more,) saw that they were not “in jest,” but in great earnest, eagerly athirst, not for sport, (as you suppose,) but for blood. But though I do not desire persecution, I expect it. I must, if I believe St. Paul: “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution;” (2 Tim. iii. 12;) either sooner or later, more or less, according to the wise providence of God. But I believe, “all these things work together for good to them that love God.” And from a conviction of this, they may even rejoice when they are “persecuted for righteousness' sake.” Yet, as I seldom “complain of ill treatment,” so I am never “dissatisfied with good.” (Page 188.) But I often wonder at it: And I once expressed my wonder nearly in the words of the old Athenian: “What have we done, that the world should be so civil to us?” You conclude the head: “As he who persecutes is but the tool of him that invites persecution,” (I know not who does) “the crime finally comes home to him who set the rioter at work.” (Page 191.) And is this all the proof that I am not peaceable? Then let all men judge if the charge is made good. 3.

I never affirmed either one or the other universally. That some of the former are children of God, and some of the latter children of the devil, I believe. But what will this prove? “His followers are directed by inward feelings, the impulses of an inflamed fancy;” (no more than they are directed by the Alcoran;) “his opposers, by the Scripture.” What, while they are cursing, swearing, blaspheming; beat ing and maiming men that have done them no wrong; and treating women in a manner too shocking to be repeated? (2.) The next proof is very extraordinary. My words are, “I was with two persons, who, I doubt, are properly enthusiasts: For, first, they think to attain the end without the means, which is enthusiasm properly so called. Again, they think themselves inspired of God, and are not. But false imagin ary inspiration is enthusiasm. That theirs is only imaginary inspiration appears hence,--it contradicts the law and the testimony.” (Page 221.) Now, by what art of man can this be made a proof of my partiality? Why thus: “These are wise words. But what do they amount to? Only to this; that these two persons would not take out their patents of inspiration from his office.” But what proof is there of this round assertion? Truly, none at all. Full as extraordinary is the third proof of my partiality. * Miss Gr told Mrs. Sp--, Mr. Wesley was a Papist. Upon this Miss Gr-- is anathematized. And we are told that, in consequence, she had lately been raving mad, and, as such, was tied down in her bed. Yet all these circumstances of madness have befallen his favourite saints, whom he has vindicated from the opprobrium.” (Page 222.) The passage in my Journal stands thus: “Mrs. Spa-told me, two or three nights since, ‘Miss Gr-- met me, and said, I assure you, Mr. Wesley is a Papist. Perhaps I need ob serve no more upon this, than that Miss Gr-- had lately been raving mad, in consequence of a fever;” (not of an ama thema, which never had any being;) “that, as such, she was tied down in her bed; and as soon as she was suffered to go abroad, went to Mr. Whitefield, to inquire of him whether she was not a Papist.

He says, “I told them they were not to judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by common report, or by their own inward feelings; no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revela tions, supposed to be made to the soul, any more than by their tears, or any involuntary effects wrought upon their bodies. I warned them that all these things were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature: They might be from God, or they might not; and were therefore not simply to be relied on, any more than simply to be condemned; but to be tried by a farther rule, to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony.” Now, is not this a formal recantation of what he had said just above?” (Page 235.) Nothing less, as I will show in two minutes, to every calm, impartial man. What I say now, I have said any time this thirty years; I have never varied therefrom for an hour: “Everything disputable is to be brought to the only certain test, ‘the law and the testimony.” “But did not you talk just now of visions and dreams?” Yes; but not as of a test of any thing; only as a channel through which God is sometimes pleased to convey “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance,” the indisputable fruit of his Spirit: And these, we may observe, wherever they exist, must be in wardly felt. Now, where is the prevarication, where the formal recantation? They are vanished into air. But here is more proof: “At length he gives up all these divine agitations to the devil: ‘I inquired, says he, ‘into the case of those who had lately cried out aloud during the preach ing. I found this had come upon every one of them in a moment, without any previous notice. In that moment they dropped down, lost all their strength, and were seized with violent pain. Some said they felt as if a sword were running through them; others, as if their whole body was tearing in pieces. These symptoms I can no more impute to any natural cause, than to. the Spirit of God.

W. had repelled Sophy out of revenge, because he had made proposals of marriage to her, which she * The one thing needful.--EDIT. rejected. Tuesday, 16. Mrs. W. made affidavit of it. Thurs day, September 1. A Grand Jury, prepared by Mr. Causton, found, that ‘John Wesley had broken the laws of the realm, by speaking and writing to Mrs. W. against her husband’s con sent, and by repelling her from the communion.’ “Friday, 2, was the third court-day at which I appeared, since my being required so to do by Mr. Parker. I moved for an immediate hearing, but was put off till the next court-day. On the next court-day I appeared again, as also at the two courts following; but could not be heard. Thursday, Novem ber 3, I appeared in court again; and yet again on Tuesday, November 22, on which day Mr. C. desired to speak with me, and read me an affidavit, in which it was affirmed, that I ‘ abused Mr. C. in his own house, calling him liar, villain, and so on.’ It was likewise repeated, that I had been repri manded at the last court, by Mr. C., as an enemy to, and hin derer of, the public peace. “My friends agreed with me, that the time we looked for was now come. And the next morning, calling on Mr. C., I told him, I designed to set out for England immediately. “Friday, December 2. I proposed to set out for Carolina about noon. But about ten, the Magistrates sent for me, and told me, I must not go out of the province; for I had not answered the allegations laid against me. I replied, ‘I have appeared at six or seven courts, in order to answer them. But I was not suffered so to do. After a few more words, I said, ‘You use me very ill. And so you do the Trustees. You know your business, and I know mine.’ “In the afternoon, they published an order, forbidding any to assist me in going out of the province. But I knew I had no more business there. So as soon as Evening Prayer was over, the tide then serving, I took boat at the Bluff, for Carolina.” This is the plain account of the matter. I need only add a remark or two on the pleasantry of my censurer.

“But take the affair from the beginning. He began to sus pect rivals in the year thirty-nine; for he says, “Remembering how many that came after me were preferred before me.” The very next words show in what sense. They “had attained unto the law of righteousness; ” I had not. But what has this to do with rivals 7 However, go on : “At this time, December 8, 1739, his opening the Bible afforded him but small relief. He sunk so far in his despondency, as to doubt if God would not lay him aside, and send other labourers into his harvest.” But this was another time. It was June 22; and the occasion of the doubt is expressly mentioned: “I preached, but had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt,” on that account. Not on -account of Mr. Whitefield. He did not “now begin to set up for himself.” We were in full union; nor was there the least shadow of rivalry or contention between us. I still sincerely “praise God for his wisdom in giving different talents to differ ent Preachers;” (page 250;) and particularly for his giving Mr. Whitefield the talents which I have not. 6. What farther proof of hypocrisy? Why, “he had given innumerable flirts of contempt in his Journals against human learning.” (Pages 252, 253.) Where? I do not know. Let the passages be cited; else, let me speak for it ever so much, it will prove nothing. “At last he was forced to have recourse to what he had so much scorned, I mean, prudence.” (Page 255.) All a mistake. I hope never to have recourse to false prudence; and true prudence I never scorned. “He might have met Mr. Whitefield half way; but he was too formidable a rival. With a less formidable one he pur sues this way. “I laboured, says he, ‘to convince Mr. Gr--,’” (my assistant, not rival,) “‘that he had not done well, in confuting, as he termed it, the sermon I preached the Sunday before. I asked, Will you meet me half way?” (The words following put my meaning beyond all dispute:) “I will never publicly preach against you. Will not you against me?” Here we see a fair invitation to Mr. Gr-- to play the hypocrite with him.” (Ibid.) Not in the least.

I know, Milton speaks of “virtual or immediate touch.” But most incline to think, virtual touch is no touch at all. “Were the style of the New Testament utterly rude and barbarous, and abounding with every fault that can possibly deform a language; this is so far from proving such language not divinely inspired, that it is one certain mark of this ori ginal.” (Page 55.) A vehement paradox this! But it is not proved yet, and probably never will. “The labours of those who have attempted to defend the purity of Scripture Greek have been very idly employed.” (Page 66.) Others think they have been very wisely employed,and that they have abundantly proved their point. Having now “considered the operations of the Holy Spirit, as the Guide of truth, who clears and enlightens the under standing, I proceed to consider him as the Comforter, who purifies and supports the will.” (Page 89.) “Sacred antiquity is full in its accounts of the sudden and entire change made by the Holy Spirit in the dispositions and manners of those whom it had enlightened; instantaneously effacing their evil habits, and familiarizing them to the per formance of every good action.” (Page 90.) “No natural cause could effect this. Neither fanaticism nor superstition, nor both of them, will account for so sudden and lasting a conversion.” (Ibid.) “Superstition never effects any considerable change in the manners. Its utmost force is just enough to make us exact in the ceremonious offices of religion, or to cause some acts of penitence, as death approaches.” (Page 91.) “Fanaticism, indeed, acts with greater violence, and, by influencing the will, frequently forces the manners from their bent, and sometimes effaces the strongest impressions of cus tom and nature. But this fervour, though violent, is rarely lasting; never so long as to establish the new system into an habit. So that when its rage subsides, as it very soon does, (but where it drives into downright madness,) the bias on the will keeps abating, till all the former habitudes recover their relaxed tone.” (Page 92.) Never were reflections more just than these.

I have in some measure explained myself on the head of miracles, in the Third Part of the ‘Farther Appeal. But since you repeat the demand, (though without taking any notice of the arguments there advanced,) I will endeavour once more to give you a distinct, full, and determinate answer. And, First, I acknowledge that I have seen with my eyes, and heard with my ears, several things, which, to the best of my judg ment, cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of natural causes, and which, I therefore believe, ought to be ‘ascribed to the extraordinary interposition of God.” If any man choose to style these miracles, I reclaim not. I have diligently inquired into the facts. I have weighed the preceding and following cir cumstances. I have strove to account for them in a natural way; but could not, without doing violence to my reason. Not to go far back, I am clearly persuaded that the sudden deliverance of John Haydon was one instance of this kind; and my own recovery, on May the 10th, another. I cannot account for either of these in a natural way. Therefore I believe they were both supernatural. “I must, Secondly, observe, that the truth of these facts is supported by the same kind of proof as that of all other facts is wont to be, namely, the testimony of competent witnesses; and that the testimony here is in as high a degree as any reasonable man can desire. Those witnesses were many in num ber: They could not be deceived themselves; for the facts in question they saw with their own eyes, and heard with their own ears. Nor is it credible, that so many of them would combine together with a view of deceiving others; the greater part being men who feared God, as appeared by the general tenor of their lives. Thus, in the case of John Haydon: This thing was not contrived and executed in a corner, and in the presence of his own family only, or three or four persons prepared for the purpose.

Was all this an effectual proof of the truth of their pretences to the Israelites themselves? It was not; they were still ‘disobedient at the sea, even at the Red Sea.” Was the giving them day by day bread from heaven, an effectual proof to those “two hundred and fifty of the princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown, who said, with Dathan and Abiram, Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up; ” (Numb. xvi. 14;) nay, “when the ground clave asunder that was under them, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up?’ (Verse 32.) Neither was this an effectual proof to those who saw it with their eyes, and heard the cries of those who went down into the pit; but, the very next day, they ‘murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord!” (Verse 41.) Was not the case generally the same with regard to the Prophets that followed? several of whom ‘stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire,’ and did many other mighty works; yet their own people received them not; yet ‘they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword, they were destitute, afflicted, tor mented !’--utterly contrary to the commonly received sup position, “that the working real, undoubted miracles, must bring all controversy to an end, and convince every gainsayer.’ “Let us come nearer yet. How stood the case between our Lord himself and his opposers? Did he not work real and undoubted miracles? And what was the effect? Still, ‘when he came to his own, his own received him not.’ Still “he was despised and rejected of men. Still it was a challenge not to be answered, ‘Have any of the Rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” After this, how can you imagine, that whoever works miracles must convince all men of the truth of his pretences? “I would just remind you of only one instance more: ‘There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. The same heard Paul speak; who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiving he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet.

The same heard Paul speak; who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiving he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.” Here was so undoubted a miracle, that the people ‘lifted up their voices, saying, The Gods are come down in the likeness of men.” But how long were even these convinced of the truth of his pretences? Only till ‘there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium;’ and then they ‘stoned him” (as they supposed) ‘to death !” (Acts xiv. 7, &c.) So certain it is, that no miracles whatever, that were ever yet wrought in the world, were effectual to prove the most glaring truth to those who hardened their hearts against it. “4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. ‘If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be’ convinced of what they desire not to believe, ‘though one rose from the dead. Without a miracle, without one rising from the dead, eav ris 6exy to 6eAmua avrov Troueuv, “if any man be willing to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God: ” But if he is not ‘willing to do his will,” he will never want an excuse, a plausible reason for re jecting it; yea, though ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it. For, let ever so much light come into the world, it will have no effect (such is the wise and just will of God) on those who ‘love darkness rather than light. It will not convince those who do not simply desire to do ‘the will of their Father which is in heaven; those ‘who mind earthly things, who, if they do not continue in any gross outward sin, yet love pleasure and ease, yet seek profit or power, preferment or reputation. Nothing will ever be an effectual proof to these of the holy and acceptable will of God, unless first their proud hearts be humbled, their stubborn wills bowed down, and their desires brought, at least in some degree, into obedience to the law of Christ.

was for many years without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, or a Sabbath-breaker? “Or, (2.) That he is not so now 7 “Or, (3.) That he continued so till he heard this man preach, and from that time was another man? “Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is, by the testimony of competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. “Or, would you have us prove by miracles, “(4.) That this was not done by our own power or holi mess? that God only is able to raise the dead, to quicken those who are dead in trespasses and sins? “Surely no. Whosoever believes the Scriptures will want no new proof of this. “Where then is the wisdom of those men who demand mira cles in proof of such a proposition? One branch of which, “that such sinners are reformed by means of these Teachers,’ being a plain fact, can only be proved by testimony, as all other facts are; and the other, ‘that this is a work of God, and a great and more than ordinary work, needs no proof, as carrying its own evidence to every thinking man. “8. To sum up this: No truly wise or sober man can possibly desire or expect miracles, to prove, either, (1.) That these doc trines are true;--this must be decided by Scripture and reason: Or, (2.) That these facts are true;--this can only be proved by testimony: Or, (3.) That to change sinners from darkness to light, is the work of God alone; only using what instruments he pleases;--this is glaringly self-evident:-Or, (4.) That such a change wrought in so many notorious sinners, within so short a time, is a great and extraordinary work of God. What then is it remains to be proved by miracles? Perhaps you will say, it is this: ‘That God has called, or sent, you to do this. Nay, this is implied in the Third of the foregoing propositions. If God has actually used us therein, if his work hath in fact prospered in our hands, then he hath called or sent us to do this.

And this gift is a gift of the Holy Ghost working within us. And as the increase of per fection, so the original of faith, is from the Spirit of God, by an internal illumination of the soul. “The second part of the office of the Holy Ghost is the renewing of man in all the parts and faculties of his soul. For our natural corruption consisting in an aversation of our wills and a depravation of our affections, an inclination of them to the will of God is wrought within us by the Spirit of God. “The third part of his office is to lead, direct, and govern us in our actions and conversations. “If we live in the Spi rit, quickened by his renovation, we must also ‘walk in the spirit, following his direction, led by his manuduction. We are also animated and acted by the Spirit of God, who giveth ‘both to will and to do.’ “And “as many as are thus led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God.” (Rom. viii. 14.) Moreover, that this direction may prove more effectual, we are guided in our prayers by the same Spirit, according to the promise, ‘I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplication.” (Zech. xii. 10.) Whereas then, “this is the confidence we have in Him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us;’ and whereas, “we know not what we should pray for as we ought, the Spi rit itself maketh intercession for us withgroaning that can not be uttered.’ (Rom. viii. 26, 27.) “And He that search eth the heart knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.” From which intercession, (made for all true Chris tians,) he hath the name of the Paraclete given him by Christ; who said, ‘I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete.” (John xiv. 16, 26.) For, “if any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,” saith St. John. “Who maketh intercession for us,’ saith St. Paul. (Rom. viii. 34.) And we have ‘another Para clete,” saith our Saviour, (John xiv. 16; Rom. viii. 27) ‘which also maketh intercession for us,” saith St. Paul.

Paul. A Paraclete then, in the notion of the Scriptures, is an Intercessor. “It is also the office of the Holy Ghost to assure us of the adoption of sons, to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God toward us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inheritance. ‘The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father; the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” As, therefore, we are born again by the Spirit, and receive from him our regeneration, so we are also by the same Spirit assured of our adoption. Because, being ‘sons, we are also heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, by the same Spirit we have the pledge, or rather the earnest, of our inheritance. ‘For he which establisheth us in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of his Spirit in our hearts; so that we are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inherit ance.’ The Spirit of God, as given to us in this life, is to be looked upon as an earnest, being part of that reward which is promised, and, upon performance of the covenant which God hath made with us, certainly to be received.” It now rests with your Lordship to take your choice, either to condemn or to acquit both ; either your Lordship must condemn Bishop Pearson for an enthusiast, or you must acquit me: For I have his express authority on my side, con cerning every text which I affirm to belong to all Christians. But I have greater authority than his, and such as I rever ence only less than the oracles of God; I mean that of our own Church.

I wave what relates to Mr. V ’s personal character, which is too well known to need my defence of it; as like wise the occurrence (real or imaginary I cannot tell) which gave birth to your performance. All that I concern myself with is your five vehement assertions with regard to the peo ple called Methodists. These I shall consider in their order, and prove to be totally false and groundless. 5. The first is this: “Their whole ministry is an open and avowed opposition to one of the fundamental articles of our areligion.” (Page 4.) How so? Why, “the Twentieth Article declares, we may not so expound one scripture, that it be repugnant to another. And yet it is notorious, that the Methodists do ever explain the word ‘faith’ as it stands in some of St. Paul’s writings, so as to make his doctrine a direct and flat contradiction to that of St. James.” (Page 5.) This stale objection has been answered an hundred times, so that I really thought we should have heard no more of it. But since it is required, I repeat the answer once more: By faith we mean “the evidence of things not seen; ” by justi fying faith, a divine evidence or conviction, that “Christ loved me, and gave himself for me.” St. Paul affirms, that a man is justified by this faith; which St. James never denies, but only asserts, that a man cannot be justified by a dead faith: And this St. Paul never affirms. “But St. James declares, ‘Faith without works is dead.” Therefore it is clearly St. James's meaning, that a faith which is without virtue and morality cannot produce salva tion. Yet the Methodists so explain St. Paul, as to affirm that faith without virtue or morality will produce salvation.” (Page 6.) Where? in which of their writings? This needs some proof: I absolutely deny the fact. So that all which follows is mere flourish, and falls to the ground at once; and all that you aver of their “open and scandalous opposition to the Twentieth Article” (ibid.) is no better than open and scandalous slander. 6.

9. You assert, Lastly, that any who choose a Methodist Clergyman for their Lecturer, “put into that office, which should be held by a Minister of the Church of England, an enemy, who undermines not only the legal establishment of that Church, but also the foundation of all religion.” (Page 13.) Once more we must call upon you for the proof; the proof of these two particulars, First, that I, John Wesley, am “an enemy to the Church; and that I undermine not only the legal establishment of the Church of England, but also the very foun dation of all religion.” Secondly. That “Mr. V-- is an enemy to the Church, and is undermining all religion, as well as the establishment.” 10. Another word, and I have done: Are there “certain qualifications required of all Lecturers, before they are by law permitted to speak to the people?” (Page 14.) And is a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles of religion one of these qualifications? And is a person who does not “conform to such subscription” disqualified to be a Lecturer? or, who “has ever held or published anything contrary to what the Church of England maintains?” Then certainly you, Dr. John Free, are not “permitted by law to speak to the people;” nei ther are you “qualified to be a Lecturer” in any church in London or England, as by law established. For you flatly deny and openly oppose more than one or two of those Articles. You do not in anywise conform to the subscription you made before you was ordained either Priest or Deacon. You both hold and publish (if you are the author and publisher of the tract before me) what is grossly, palpably “contrary to what the Church of England maintains,” in her Homilies as well as Articles; those Homilies to which you have also sub scribed, in subscribing the Thirty-sixth Article. You have sub cribed them, Sir; but did you ever read them? Did you ever read so much as the three first Homilies? I beg of you, Sir, to read these at least, before you write again about the doctrine of the Church of England. And would it not be prudent to read a few of the writings of the Methodists before you undertake a farther confutation of them? At present you know not the men, or their communication.

At present you know not the men, or their communication. You are as wholly unacquainted both with them and their doctrines, as if you had lived all your days in the islands of Japan, or the deserts of Arabia. You have given a furious assault to you know not whom ; and you have done it, you know not why. You have not hurt me thereby; but you have hurt yourself, perhaps in your cha racter, certainly in your conscience. For this is not doing to others “as you would they should do unto you.” When you grow cool, I trust you will see this clearly; and will no more accuse, in a manner so remote from fairness and candour, Reverend Sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake,

A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Baily of Cork Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 9 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. Why do you not subscribe your name to a performance so perfectly agreeing, both as to the matter and form, with the sermons you have been occasionally preaching for more than a year last past? As to your seeming to disclaim it by saying once and again, “I am but a plain, simple man; ” and, “The doctrine you teach is only a revival of the old Antino mian heresy, I think they call it; ” I presume it is only a pious fraud. But how came so plain and simple a man to know the meaning of the Greek word Philalethes? Sir, this is not of a piece. If you did not care to own your child, had not you better have subscribed the Second (as well as the First) Letter, George Fisher ?” 2. I confess you have timed your performance well. When the other pointless thing was published, I came unluckily to Cork on the self-same day. But you might now suppose I was at a convenient distance. However, I will not plead this as an excuse for taking no notice of your last favour; although, to say the truth, I scarce know how to answer it, as you write in a language I am not accustomed to. Both Dr. Tucker, Dr. Church, and all the other gentlemen who have wrote to me in public for some years, have wrote as gentlemen, having some regard to their own, whatever my character was. But as you fight in the dark, you regard not what weapons you * The Letter thus subscribed was published at Cork, on May 30th last. use. We are not, therefore, on even terms; I cannot answer you in kind; I am constrained to leave this to your good allies of Blackpool and Fair-Lane.* I shall first state the facts on which the present controversy turns; and then consider the most material parts of your performance. First. I am to state the facts. But here I am under a great disadvantage, having few of my papers by me.

“Yet I cannot but return my hearty thanks to the gentle 'men who have distributed them through the town. I believe it will do more good than they are sensible of For though I dislike its condemning the Magistrates and Clergy in general, (several of whom were not concerned in the late proceedings,) yet I think the reasoning is strong and clear; and that the facts referred to therein are not at all misrepresented, will sufficiently appear in due time. “I fear God and honour the King. I earnestly desire to be at peace with all men. I have not willingly given any offence, either to the Magistrates, the Clergy, or any of the inhabitants of the city of Cork; neither do I desire anything of them, but to be treated (I will not say, as a Clergyman, a gentleman, or a Christian, but) with such justice and humanity as are due to a Jew, a Turk, or a Pagan. “I am, “Sir, “Your obedient servant, II. l. Your performance is dated, May 28th, the most material parts of which I am now to consider. It contains, First, a charge against the Methodist Preachers: Secondly, a defence of the Corporation and Clergy of Cork. With regard to your charge against those Preachers, may I take the liberty to inquire why you drop six out of the eleven that have been at Cork, viz., Mr. Swindells, Wheatly, Lar wood, Skelton, Tucker, and Haughton P Can you glean up no story concerning these; or is it out of mere compassion that you spare them ? 2. But before I proceed, I must beg leave to ask, Who is this evidence against the other five? Why, one that neither dares show his face, nor tell his name, or the place of his abode; one that is ashamed (and truly not without cause) of the dirty work he is employed in; so that we could not even conjecture who he was, but that his speech bewrayeth him. How much credit is due to such an evidence, let any man of reason judge. 3. This worthy witness falls foul upon Mr. Cownly, and miserably murders a tale he has got by the end. (Page 13.) Sir, Mr. M. is nothing obliged to you for bringing the charac 'ter of his niece into question. He is perfectly satisfied that Mr. C.

C. acted, in that whole affair, with the strictest regard both to honour and conscience. You next aver, that Mr. Reeves “asked a young woman, whether she had a mind to go to hell with her father.” (Page 16.) It is possible. I will neither deny nor affirm it without some better proof. But, suppose he did; unless I know the circumstances of the case, I could not say whether he spoke right or wrong. 4. But what is this to the “monstrous, shocking, amazing blasphemy, spoken by Mr. Charles Wesley? who one day,” you say, “preaching on Hammond's Marsh, called out, ‘Has any of you got the Spirit?’ and when none answered, said, ‘I am sure some of you have got it; for I feel virtue go out of me.’” (Page 18.) Sir, do you expect any one to believe this story? I doubt it will not pass even at Cork; unless with your wise friend, who said, “Methodists! Ay, they are the people who place all their religion in wearing long whiskers.” 5. In the same page, you attack Mr. Williams for applying those words, “I thy Maker am thy husband.” Sir, by the same rule that you conclude “these expressions could only '78 LETTER. To flow from a mind full of lascivious ideas,” you may conclude the forty-fifth Psalm to be only a wanton sonnet, and the Canticles a counterpart to Rochester’s Poems. But you say, he likewise “made use of unwarrantable expres sions, particularly with regard to faith and good works; and the next day denied that he had used them.” (Pages 10, 1].) Sir, your word is not proof of this. Be pleased to produce proper vouchers of the facts; and I will then give a farther answer. Likewise, as to his “indecent and irreverent behaviour at church, turning all the Preacher said into ridicule, so that numbers asked, in your hearing, why the Churchwardens did not put the profane, wicked scoundrel in the stocks; ” my present answer is, I doubt the facts. Will your “men of undoubted character” be so good as to attest them? 6. Of all these, Mr.

On that supposition I quite agree with the epi grammatist : Virgilii in tumulo, divini premia valis, Erplicat en viridem laurea laeta comam. Qnid te defunctum juvat haec * Felicior olim Sub patulae faqi tegmine vivus eras." 20. Your last charge is, that “I profess myself to be a member of the established Church, and yet act contrary to the commands of my spiritual governors, and stab the Church to the very vitals.” (Page 27.) I answer, (1.) What “spi ritual governor ” has commanded me not to preach in any part of His Majesty’s dominions? I know not one, to this very day, either in England or Ireland. (2) What is it, to “stab the Church to the very vitals?” Why, to deny her fundamental doctrines. And do I, or you, do this? Let any one who has read her Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, judge, which of us two denies, that “we are justified by faith alone;” that every believer has “the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit; ” that all who are strong in faith do “perfectly love him, and worthily magnify his holy name: ” He that denies this, is “the treacherous son who stabs this affection ate and tender mother.” If you deny it, you have already disowned the Church. But as for me, I neither can nor will; though I know you sincerely desire I should. Hoc Ithacus velit et magno mercentur Alride.} But I choose to stay in the Church, were it only to reprove those who “betray” her “with a kiss.” * See the green laurel rears her graceful head O'er Virgil's tomb! But can this cheer the dead? Happier by far thou wast of old, when laid Beneath thy spreading beech's ample shade 1 + This quotation from the Eneid of Virgil is thus translated by Beresford: *- This Ithacus desires, And Atreus' sons with vast rewards shall buy.”-EDIT. 21. I come now to your defence of the Corporation and Clergy. But sure such a defence was never seen before. For whereas I had said, “I dislike the condemning the Magis trates or Clergy in general, because several of them ” (so I charitably supposed) “were not concerned in the late pro ceedings;” you answer, “Pray by all means point them out, that they may be distinguished by some mark of honour above their brethren.” (Pages 29, 30.) What do you mean?

You undertake to give an account, First, of the rise and principles, Then, of the practices, of the Methodists. On the former head you say, “Our Church has long been infested with these grievous wolves, who, though no more than two when they entered in, and they so young they might rather be called wolflings,” (that is lively and pretty!) “have yet spread their ravenous kind through every part of this kingdom. Where, what havoc they have made, how many of the sheep they have torn, I need not say.” (Pages 4, 5.) “About twenty five years ago, these two bold though beardless Divines,” (pity, Sir, that you had not taught me, twenty-five years ago sapientem pascere barbam,t and thereby to avoid some part of your displeasure,) “being lifted with spiritual pride, were * With authority enough.--EDIT. + This quotation from Horace is thus translated by Boscawen : “What time, by his instructions cheer'd, He bade me train his sapient beard.”-EDIT. presumptuous enough to become founders of the sect called Methodists.” (Page 6.) “A couple of young, raw, aspiring twigs of the ministry dreamed of a special and supernatural call to this.” (Page 25.) No, Sir; it was you dreamed of this, not we. We dreamed of nothing twenty-five years ago, but instructing our pupils in religion and learning, and a few prisoners in the common principles of Christianity. You go on: “They were ambitious of being accounted Missionaries, immediately de legated by Heaven to correct the errors of Bishops and Arch bishops, and reform their abuses; to instruct the Clergy in the true nature of Christianity, and to caution the laity not to venture their souls in any such unhallowed hands as refused to be initiated in all the mysteries of Methodism.” (Pages 20, 21.) Well asserted indeed; but where is the proof of any one of these propositions? I must insist upon this; clear, cogent proof: Else they must be set down for so many glaring falsehoods. 4.

4. “The Church of Rome (to which on so many accounts they were much obliged, and as gratefully returned the obliga tion) taught them to set up for infallible interpreters of Scrip ture.” (Page 54.) Pray on what accounts are we “obliged to the Church of Rome?” And how have we “returned the obligation?” I beg you would please, (1.) To explain this; and, (2.) To prove that we ever yet (whoever taught us) “set up for infallible interpreters of Scripture.” So far from it, that we have over and over declared, in print as well as in public preaching, “We are no more to expect any living man to be infallible than to be omniscient.” (Vol. VI. p. 4.) 5. “As to other extraordinary gifts, influences, and operations of the Holy Ghost, no man who has but once dipped into their Journals, and other ostentatious trash of the same kind, can doubt their looking upon themselves as not coming one whit behind the greatest of the Apostles.” (Methodism Examined, p. 21.) I acquit you, Sir, of ever having “once dipped into that ostentatious trash.” I do not accuse you of having read so much as the titles of my Journals. I say, my Journals; for (as little as you seem to know it) my brother has published none. I therefore look upon this as simple ignorance. You talk thus, because you know no better. You do not know, that in these very Journals I utterly disclaim the “extraordinarygifts of the Spirit,” and all other “influences and operations of the Holy Ghost” than those that are common to all real Christians. And yet I will not say, this ignorance is blameless. For ought you not to have known better? Ought you not to have taken the pains of procuring better information, when it might so easily have been had 7 Ought you to have publicly advanced so heavy charges as these, without knowing whether they were true or no? 6. You proceed to give as punctual an account of us, tan quam intus et in cute nosses : * “They outstripped, if pos sible, even Montanus, for external sanctity and severity of discipline.” (Page 22.) “They condemned all regard for tem poral concerns.

Let those who do, answer for themselves. I suppose just the contrary in “Predestination Calmly Considered,” a tract published ten years ago. 10. A Third charge is, “They represent faith as a super natural principle, altogether precluding the judgment and understanding, and discerned by some internal signs; not as a firm persuasion founded on the evidence of reason, and discernible only by a conformity of life and manners to such a persuasion.” (Page 11.) We do not represent faith “as altogether precluding,” or at all “precluding, the judgment and understanding;” rather as enlightening and strengthening the understanding, as clear ing and improving the judgment. But we do represent it as the gift of God, yea, and a “supernatural gift; ” yet it does not preclude “the evidence of reason; ” though neither is this its whole foundation. “A conformity of life and manners” to that persuasion, “Christ loved me, and gave himself for me,” is doubtless one mark by which it is discerned; but not the only one. It is likewise discerned by internal signs,--both by the witness of the Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit; namely, “love, peace, joy, meekness, gentleness; ” by all “the mind which was in Christ Jesus.” 11. You assert, Fourthly, “They speak of grace, that it is as perceptible to the heart as sensible objects are to the senses; whereas the Scriptures speak of grace, that it is conveyed imperceptibly; and that the only way to be satisfied whether we have it or no, is to appeal, not to our inward feelings, but our outward actions.” (Page 32.) We do speak of grace, (meaning thereby, that power of God which worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure,) that it is “as perceptible to the heart” (while it comforts, refreshes, purifies, and sheds the love of God abroad therein) “as sensible objects are to the senses.” And yet we do not doubt, but it may frequently be “conveyed to us imperceptibly.” But we know no scripture which speaks of it as always conveyed, and always working, in an imperceptible manner. We likewise allow, that outward actions are one way of satisfying us that we have grace in our hearts.

Neither did we ever deny, that it is “a work graciously begun by the Holy Spirit,” enlightening our understanding, (which, I suppose, you call “our rational powers and faculties,”) as well as influencing our affections. And it is certain, he “gradually carries on this work,” by continuing to influence all the powers of the soul; and that the outward sign of this inward work is, “sincere and universal obedience.” 13. A Sixth charge is: “They treat Christianity as a wild, enthusiastic scheme, which will bear no examination.” (Page 30.) Where or when? In what sermon? In what tract, practical or polemical? I wholly deny the charge. I have myself closely and carefully examined every part of it, every verse of the New Testament, in the original, as well as in our own and other translations. 14. Nearly allied to this is the threadbare charge of enthu siasm, with which you frequently and largely compliment us. But as this also is asserted only, and not proved, it falls to the ground of itself. Meantime, your asserting it, is a plain proof that you know nothing of the men you talk of Be cause you know them not, you so boldly say, “One advantage we have over them, and that is reason.” Nay, that is the very question. I appeal to all mankind, whether you have it, or no. However, you are sure we have it not, and are never likely to have. For “reason,” you say, “cannot do much with an enthusiast, whose first principle is, to have no thing to do with reason, but resolve all his religious opinions and notions into immediate inspiration.” Then, by your own account, I am no enthusiast; for I resolve none of my notions into immediate inspiration. I have something to do with rea son; perhaps as much as many of those who make no account of my labours. And I am ready to give up every opinion which I cannot by calm, clear reason defend. Whenever, therefore, you will try what you can do by argument, which you have not done yet, I wait your leisure, and will follow you step by step, which way soever you lead. 15. “But is not this plain proof of the enthusiasm of the Methodists, that they despise human learning, and make a loud and terrible outcry against it?” Pray, Sir, when and where was this done?

For myself, for my own use, I raise no contributions, either great or small. The weekly contributions of our community, (which are freely given, not squeezed out of any,) as well as the gifts and offer ings at the Lord’s table, never come into my hands. I have no concern with them, not so much as the beholding them with my eyes. They are received every week by the Stewards of the society, men of well-known character in the world; and by them constantly distributed, within the week, to those whom they know to be in real necessity. As to the “very large oblations wherewith I am favoured by persons of better figure and fortune,” I know nothing of them. Be so kind as to refresh my memory by mentioning a few of their names. I have the happiness of knowing some of great figure and fortune; some right honourable persons. But if I were to say, that all of them together had given me seven pounds in seven years, I should say...more than I could make good. And yet I doubt not, but they would freely give me anything I wanted; but, by the blessing of God, I want nothing that they can give. I want only more of the Spirit of love and power, and of an healthful mind. As to those “many be lieving wives who practise pious frauds on their unbelieving husbands,” I know them not, no, not one of that kind; there fore I doubt the fact. If you know any such, be pleased to give us their names and places of abode. Otherwise you must bear the blame of being the lover, if not the maker, of a lie. Perhaps you will say, “Why, a great man said the same thing but a few years ago.” What, if he did? Let the frog swell as long as he can, he will not equal the ox. He might say many things, all circumstances considered, which will not come well from you, as you have neither his wit, nor sense, nor learning, nor age, nor dignity. Tibi parvula res est: Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est." If you fall upon people that meddle not with you, without either fear or wit, you may possibly find they have a little more to say for themselves than you was aware of.

“13. For surely he has no authority to murder souls; either by his neglect, by his smooth, if not false, doctrine, or by hindering another from plucking them out of the fire and bringing them to life everlasting. “14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or is displeased with him for it, how great reason is there to fear, that he regards his own profit more than the salvation of souls l’’ 11. “But why do you not prove your mission by miracles?” This likewise you repeat over and over. But I have not leisure to answer the same stale objection an hundred times. I there fore give this also the same answer which I gave many years ago : 12. “What is it you would have us prove by miracles? that the doctrines we preach are true? This is not the way to prove that: We prove the doctrines we preach by Scripture and reason. Is it, (1.) That A. B. was for many years without God in the world, a common swearer, a Sabbath-breaker, a drunkard? Or, (2.) That he is not so now? Or, (3.) That he continued so till he heard us preach, and from that time was another man? Not so; the proper way to prove these facts, is by the testimony of competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. Or would you have it proved by miracles, (4.) That this was not done by our own power or holiness? that God only is able to raise the dead, those who are dead in trespasses and sins? Nay, “if you hear not Moses, and the Prophets, and the Apostles, on this head, neither will you believe ‘though one rose from the dead. It is therefore utterly unreasonable and absurd, to require or expect the proof of miracles, in questions of such a kind as are always decided by proofs of quite another nature.” (Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Vol. VIII. p. 233.) If you will take the trouble of reading that little Tract, you will find more upon the same head. 13. If you say, “But those who lay claim to extraordinary inspiration and revelation ought to prove that claim by mira cles,” we allow it: But this is not our case.

Has not fire more mobility than this? Did there need omnipotence, to convert fire into fire, into the sun, or moisture into water? “Darkness was absolutely unknown to the angels till they fell. Hence it appears, that darkness is the ground of the mate riality of nature.” (Page 33.) Appears--to whom? Nothing appears to me, but the proving ignotum per ignotius.f * See the Spectator. + The proving of an unknown proposition by one still less known.-EDIT. “All life is a desire.” (Spirit of Love, Part II., p. 198.) “Every desire, as such, is and must be made up of contra riety. God’s bringing a sensible creature into existence is the bringing the power of desire into a creaturely state.” (Ibid.) Does not all this require a little more proof, and not a little illustration? “Hard and soft, thick and thin, could have no existence, till nature lost its first purity. And this is the one true origin of all the materiality of this world. Else, nothing thick or hard could ever have been.” (Part I., p. 21.) Does not this call for much proof? since most people believe God created matter, merely because so it seemed good in his sight. But you add a kind of proof. “How comes a flint to be so hard and dark? It is because the meekness and fluidity of the light, air, and water are not in it.” (Ibid.) The meekness of light, and air, and water / What is that? Is air or water capable of virtue? “The first property of nature is a constraining, attracting, and coagulating power.” (Page 24.) I wait the proof of this. “God brought gross matter out of the sinful properties of mature, that thereby the fallen angels might lose all their power over them.” (Page 27.) And have they lost all power over them? Is Satan no longer prince of the power of the air? “As all matter is owing to the first property of nature, which is an astringing, compressing desire.” (Page 28.) Stop here, Sir. I totally deny, that any unintelligent being is capable of any desire at all. And yet this gross, capital mistake, runs through your whole theory. “The fourth property is fire.” (Page 49.) Where is the proof? “Which changes the properties of nature into an heavenly state.” (Page 48.) Proof again?

“Which changes the properties of nature into an heavenly state.” (Page 48.) Proof again? “The con junction of God and nature brings forth fire.” This needs the most proof of all. “Every right-kindled fire must give forth light.” Why? “Because the eternal fire is the effect of supernatural light.” Nay, then light should rather give forth fire. “The fire of the soul and that of the body has but one nature.” (Page 52.) Can either Behmen or Spinosa prove this ? 3. Of Adam in paradise. “Paradise is an heavenly birth of life.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part I., p. 6.) How does this definition explain the thing defined 9 “Adam had at first both an heavenly and an earthly body. Into the latter, was the spirit of this world breathed; and in this spirit and body did the heavenly spirit and body of Adam dwell.” (Page 7.) So he had originally two bodies and two souls | This will need abundance of proof. “The spirit and body of this world was the medium through which he was to have commerce with this world.” The proof? “But it was no more alive in him, than Satan and the serpent were alive in him at his first creation. Good and evil were then only in his outward body and in the outward world.” What! was there evil in the world, and even in Adam, together with Satan and the serpent, at his first creation? “But they were kept unactive by the power of the heavenly man within him.” Did this case cover the earthly man, or the earthly case the heavenly 9 But “he had power to choose, whether he would use his out ward body only as a means of opening the outward world to. him;” (so it was not quite unactive neither;) “or of opening the bestial life in himself. Till this was opened in him, nothing in this outward world, no more than his own outward body,” (so now it is unactive again,) “could act upon him, make any impressions upon him, or raise any sensations in him; neither had he any feeling of good or evil from it.” (Page 9.) All this being entirely new, we must beg clear and full proof of it.

Till this was opened in him, nothing in this outward world, no more than his own outward body,” (so now it is unactive again,) “could act upon him, make any impressions upon him, or raise any sensations in him; neither had he any feeling of good or evil from it.” (Page 9.) All this being entirely new, we must beg clear and full proof of it. “God said to man at his creation, Rule thou over this imper fect, perishing world, without partaking of its impure nature.” (Page 21.) Was not the world then at first perfect in its kind? Was it impure then? Or would it have perished if man had not sinned? And are we sure that God spake thus? “The end God proposed in the creation was the restoring all things to their glorious state.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II., p. 61.) “In the creation 1” Was not this rather the end which he proposed in the redemption? “Adam was created to keep what is called the curse, covered and overcome by Paradise. And as Paradise concealed and overcame all the evil in the elements, so Adam's heavenly man concealed from him all the evil of the earthly nature that was under it.” (Page 62.) Can we believe that there was any evil in man from the creation, if we believe the Bible? “Our own good spirit is the very Spirit of God; and yet not God, but the Spirit of God kindled into a creaturely form.” Is there any meaning in these words? And how are they con sistent with those that follow * “This spirit is so related to God, as my breath is to the air.” (Page 195.) Nay, if so, your spirit is God. For your breath is air. “That Adam had at first the nature of an angel, is plain from hence, that he was both male and female in one person. Now, this (the being both male and female) is the very perfec tion of the angelic nature.” (Page 65.) Naturalists say that snails have this perfection. But who can prove that angels have? You attempt to prove it thus: “‘In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.’ Here we are told, (1.) That the being male and female in one person is the very nature of angels.

Who will stay the hand of the Almighty, or say unto him, What doest thou? “No fruits or vegetables could have sprung up in the divided elements, but because they are parts of that glassy sea, where angelical fruits grew before.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part I., p. 19.) But how came those fruits to grow before? How came they to grow in the glassy sea? Were they not produced out of nothing at first 7 If not, God was not before nature. If they were, cannot he still produce out of nothing whatso ever pleaseth him? “All outward nature being fallen from heaven,” (that we deny,) “must, as well as it can, do and work as it did in heaven.” (Page 20.) “As well as it can l’” What can it do without God, who upholdeth all things by the word of his power? And what can it not do, if he pleaseth? Or, rather, what cannot he do, with or without it? “Matter could not possibly be, but from sin.” (Spirit of Love, Part I., p. 23.) That is, in very plain terms, God could not have created matter if Satan had not sinned ! “God could not create man with a soul and a body, unless there was such a thing as nature antecedent to the creation of man.” (Page 30.) Why could not God do this? Because “body and spirit are not two separate things, but are only the inward and outward condition of one and the same being. Every creature must have its own body, and cannot be without it. For its body is that” (Who would have thought it!) “which makes it manifest to itself. It cannot know either that it is, or what it is, but by its own body 1” (Page 32.) What a heap of bold assertions is here to curb omnipotence And not one of them has a tittle of proof, unless one can prove the other | But we have more still: “The body of any creature has nothing of its own, but is solely the outward manifestation of that which is inwardly in the soul. Every animal has nothing in its outward form or shape but that which is the form and growth of its spirit.

Every animal has nothing in its outward form or shape but that which is the form and growth of its spirit. As no number can be anything else but that which the units contained in it make it to be, so no body can be anything else but the coagulation or sum total of those properties of nature that are coagulated in it.” (Page 33.) Astonishing! What a discovery is this, that a body is only a curdled spirit ! that our bodies are only the sum total of our spiritual properties! and that the form of every man’s body is only the form of his spirit made visible ! “Every spirit manifests its own nature by that body which proceeds from it as its own birth.” (Part II., p. 17.) Does the body then grow out of the spirit, as the hair and nails grow out of the body; and this in consequence of the “powers of nature,” distinct from the power and will of God? To abridge God of his power, after creation, as well as before it, you affirm, farther, “This is an axiom that cannot be shaken, Nothing can rise higher than its first created nature; and therefore an angel at last must have been an angel at first. Do you think it possible for an ox to be changed into a rational philosopher? Yet this is as possible as for one who has only by creation the life of this world to be changed into an angel of heaven. The life of this world can reach no farther than this world; no omnipotence of God can carry it farther: Therefore, if man is to be an angel at last, he must have been created an angel; because no creature can possibly have any other life, or higher degree of life, than that which his creation brought forth in him.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II., p. 81.) I have quoted this passage at some length, that the sense of it may appear beyond dispute. But what divinity ! and what reasoning to support it! Can God raise nothing higher than its first created state? Is it not possible for him to change an ox or a stone into a rational philosopher, or a child of Abraham ? to change a man or a worm into an angel of heaven? Poor omnipotence which cannot do this!

That we “must be baptized with the Holy Ghost,” implies this and no more, that we cannot be “renewed in righteousness and true holiness” any otherwise than by being over-shadowed, quickened, and animated by that blessed Spirit. “Our fall is nothing else but the falling of our soul from its heavenly body and spirit, into a bestial body and spirit. Our redemption” (you mean, our new birth) “is nothing else but the regaining our first angelic spirit and body.” (Ibid.) What an account is here of the Christian redemption How would Dr. Tindal have smiled at this ! Where you say, “Re demption is nothing else but the life of God in the soul,” you allow an essential part of it. But here you allow it to be no thing else but that which is no part of it at all; nothing else but a whim, a madman’s dream, a chimera, a mere non-entity! “This,” (angelic spirit and body,) “in Scripture, is called our ‘new’ or ‘inward man.’” (Ibid.) The “inward man” in Scripture means one thing, the “new man” another. The former means, the mind, opposed to the body: “Though our outward man,” our body, “perish, yet the inward man,” the mind or soul, “is renewed day by day.” (2 Cor. iv. 16.) The latter means, universal holiness: “Put off the old man, which is corrupt; and put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Eph. iv. 22, 24.) But neither does the one nor the other ever mean “this angelic spirit and body.” You yourself know better what the new birth is. You describe it better, though still with amazing queerness of language, where you say, - “Man hath the light and water of an outward nature to quench the wrath of his own life, and the light and meekness of Christ, as a seed born in him, to bring forth anew the image of God.” But it is not strange, that you speak so confusedly and darkly, as you generally do, of the new birth, seeing you seem to have no conception of that faith whereby we are born again. This abundantly appears from your frank declaration, “We are neither saved by faith, nor by works.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II., p. 36.) Flatly contrary to the declaration of St.

And I fear they who stop the workings of their reason, lie the more open to the workings of their imagination. There is abundantly greater danger of this when we fancy we have no longer need to “be taught of man.” To this your late writings directly lead. One who admires them will be very apt to cry out, “I have found all that I need know of God, of Christ, of myself, of heaven, of hell, of sin, of grace, and of salvation.” (Part II., p. 4.) And the rather, because you yourself affirm roundly, “When once we appre hend the all of God, and our own nothingness,” (which a man may persuade himself he does, in less than four-and twenty hours,) “it brings a kind of infallibility into the soul in which it dwells; all that is vain, and false, and deceitful, is forced to vanish and fly before it.” (Part I., p. 95.) Agree ably to which, you tell your convert, “You have no questions to ask of any body.” (Spirit of Love, Part II., p.218.) And if, notwithstanding this, he will ask, “But how am I to keep up the flame of love?” you answer, “I wonder you should want to know this. Does a blind, or sick, or lame man want to know how he should desire sight, health, or limbs?” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II., p. 165.) No; but he wants to know how he should attain, and how he should keep, them. And he who has attained the love of God, may still want to know how he shall keep it. And he may still inquire, “May I not take my own passions, or the suggestions of evil spirits, for the workings of the Spirit of God?” (Page 198.) To this you answer, “Every man knows when he is governed by the spirit of wrath, envy, or covetousness, as easily and as cer tainly as he knows when he is hungry.” (Ibid.) Indeed he does not; neither as easily nor as certainly. Without great care, he may take wrath to be pious zeal, envy to be virtuous emulation, and covetousness to be Christian prudence or laudable frugality. “Now, the knowledge of the Spirit of God in yourself is as perceptible as covetousness.” Perhaps so; for this is as difficultly perceptible as any temper of the human soul.

Extremely dangerous therefore is this other gospel, which leads quite wide of the gospel of Christ. And what must the consequence be, if we thus “break,” yea, “and teach men so,” not “one” only, neither “the least,” of “his commandments?” Even that we “shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” God grant this may not fall on you or me ! 7. However, whether we have a place in heaven or not, you are very sure we shall have none in hell. For there is no hell in rerum naturá, “no such place in the universe.” You declare this over and over again, in great variety of expres sions. It may suffice to mention two or three: “Hell is no penalty prepared or inflicted by God.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II, p. 33.) “Damnation is only that which springs up within you.” (Spirit of Love, Part II., p. 47.) “Hell and damnation are nothing but the various operations of self.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part I., p. 79.) I rather incline to the account published a few years ago, by a wise and pious man, (the late Bishop of Cork) where he is speaking of theimprovement of human knowledge by revelation. Some of his words are: “Concerning future punishments, we learn from revelation only, (1.) That they are both for soul and body, which are distinguished in Scripture by “the worm that dieth not,’ and ‘the fire which never shall be quenched:” And accordingly we are bid to “fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. Upon which I shall only remark, that whereas we find by experience, the body and soul in this life are not capable of suffering the extremity of pain and anguish at the same time, insomuch that the greatest anguish of mind is lost and diverted by acute and pungent pain of body; yet we learn from Scripture, that in hell the wicked will be subject to extreme torments of both together.” (Procedure, &c., of Human Understanding, p. 350.) “(2.) That the chief cause of their eternal misery will be an eternal exclusion from the beatific vision of God. This exclusion seems to be the only punishment to which we can now conceive a pure spirit liable.

sick by a word, a touch, a shadow !-- For they healed the They spake the dead alive, and living dead. “But though these extraordinary operations of the Spirit have been long since withdrawn, yet the pretension to them still subsists in the confident claim of the Methodists.” This you boldly affirm, and I flatly deny. I deny that either I, or any in connexion with me, (for others, whether called Methodists, or anything else, I am no more concerned to answer than you are,) do now, or ever did, lay any claim to “these extraordinary operations of the Spirit.” 7. But you will prove it. They “confidently and presump tuously claim a particular and immediate inspiration.” (Ibid.) I answer, First, so do you, and in this very sermon, though you call it by another name. By inspiration, we mean that inward assistance of the Holy Ghost, which “helps our infirmi ties, enlightens our understanding, rectifies our will, comforts, purifies, and sanctifies us.” (Page 14.) Now, all this you claim as well as I; for these are your own words. “Nay, but you claim a particular inspiration.” So do you; do not you expect Him to sanctify you in particular? “Yes; but I look for no imme diate inspiration.” You do; you expect He will immediately and directly help your infirmities. Sometimes, it is true, He does this, by the mediation or intervention of other men; but at other times, particularly in private prayer, he gives that he', directly from himself. “But is this all you mean by particulai, immediate inspiration?” It is; and so I have declared a thou sand times in private, in public, by every method I could devise. It is pity, therefore, that any should still undertake to give an account of my sentiments, without either hearing or reading what I say. Is this doing as we would be done to? 8. I answer, Secondly, there is no analogy between claiming. this inspiration of the Spirit, who, you allow, “assists, and will assist, all true believers to the end of the world;” (page 18;) and claiming those extraordinary operations of the Spirit which were vouchsafed to the Apostles. The former both you and I pretend to; yea, and enjoy, or we are no believers. The latter you do not pretend to; nor do I, nor any that are in connexion with me. 9.

11. “Under these pretended impressions, their next advance is to a call to preach the word themselves; and forth they issue, as under the immediate inspiration of God's Spirit, with the language of Apostles, and zeal of Martyrs, to publish the gos pel, as if they were among our remotest ancestors, strangers to the name of Christ.” (Pages 20, 21.) The plain truth is this: One in five hundred of those whom God so enlightens and comforts, sooner or later, believes it to be his duty to call other sinners to repentance. Such an one commonly stifles this conviction till he is so uneasy he can stifle it no longer. He then consults one or more of those whom he believes to be competent judges; and, under the direction of these, goes on, step by step, from a narrower to a larger sphere of action. Meantime he endeavours to use only “the language of the Apostles,” to speak the things of the Spirit in the words of the Spirit. And he longs and prays for the “zeal of Mar tyrs,” continually finding the need thereof; seeing our present countrymen are as great strangers to the mind that was in Christ, as our ancestors were to his name. 12. “But the Holy Spirit no longer comes from heaven like a rushing mighty wind. It no longer appears in cloven tongues, as of fire.” I wonder who imagines it does. “We now dis cern not between his suggestions and the motions of our own rational nature.” Many times we do not; but at other times, God may give such peace or joy, and such love to himself and all mankind, as we are sure are not “the motions of our own nature.” “To say, then, that the Holy Spirit began his work at such a time, and continued it so long in such a manner, is as vain as to account for the blowing of the wind.” Hold ! accounting for is not the thing. To make a parallel, it must be, “is as vain as to say, that the wind began to blow at such a time, and continued so long in such a manner.” And where is the vanity of this?

They captivate the people by such professions and appearances of uncommon sanctity. But that which can never fail of a general respect is, a quiet and ex emplary life, free from the many follies and indiscretions which those restless and vagrant Teachers are apt to fall into.” (Charge, p. 25.) By “extraordinary strictnesses and severities,” I presume your Lordship means, the abstaining from wine and animal food; which, it is sure, Christianity does not require. But if you do, I fear your Lordship is not throughly informed of the matter of fact. I began to do this about twelve years ago, when I had no thought of “annoying parochial Ministers,” or of “captivating” any “people” thereby, unless it were the Chica saw or Choctaw Indians. But I resumed the use of them both, about two years after, for the sake of some who thought I made it a point of conscience; telling them, “I will eat flesh while the world standeth,” rather than “make my brother to offend.” Dr. Cheyne advised me to leave them off again, assuring me, “Till you do, you will never be free from fevers.” And since I have taken his advice, I have been free (blessed be God!) from all bodily disorders.” Would to God I knew any method of being equally free from all “follies and indiscretions!” But this I never expect to attain till my spirit returns to God. 15. But in how strange a manner does your Lordship repre sent this! What a construction do you put upon it! “Appear ances of an uncommon sanctity, in order to captivate the people. Pretensions to more exalted degrees of strictness, to make their way into weak minds and fickle heads.” (Ibid. p. 25.) “Pre tencestogreater sanctity, whereby they draw over to themselves the most ignorant of the people.” (Ibid. p. 4.) If these are “appearances of uncommon sanctity,” (which, indeed, might bear a dispute,) how does your Lordship know that they are only appearances? that they do not spring from the heart? Suppose these were “exalted degrees of strictness,” is your Lordship absolutely assured that we practise them only “to make our way into weak minds and fickle heads?” Where is the proof that these “pretences to greater sanctity,” (as your Lordship is pleased to phrase them,) are mere pretences, and have nothing of reality or sincerity in them?

Morgan's, at Mitchel. The servant telling me her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the “honest, sensible woman.” I imme diately asked, “Did I ever tell you or your husband that you would be damned if you took any money of me?” (So the story ran in the first part of the “Comparison; ” it has now undergone a very considerable alteration.) “Or did you or he ever affirm,” (another circumstance related at Truro,) “that I was rude with your maid?” She replied, vehemently, “Sir, I never said you was, or that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But we have been belied as well as our neighbours.” She added, “When the Bishop came down last, he sent us word that he would dine at our house; but he did not, being invited to a neighbouring gentle man's. He sent for me thither, and said, ‘Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down? Do you know Mr. Wesley? Did not he tell you, you would be damned if you took any money of him? And did not he offer rudeness to your maid?' I told him, ‘No, my Lord; he never said any such thing to me, nor to my husband that I know of He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him: But a man told me once (who I was told was a Methodist Preacher) that I should be damned if I did not know my sins were forgiven.’” 4. This is her own account given to me. And an account it is, irreconcilably different (notwithstanding some small resemblance in the last circumstance) from that she is affirmed to have given your Lordship. Whether she did give that account to your Lordship or no, your Lordship knows best. That the Comparer affirms it, is no proof at all; since he will affirm any thing that suits his purpose. 5.

This would naturally have furnished both him and his admirers with fresh matter of ridicule. On the other hand, if I should let myself down to a level with him, by a less serious manner of writing than I was accustomed to, I was afraid of debasing the dignity of the subject. Nay, and I knew not but I might catch something of his spirit. I remembered the ad vice, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” (Prov. xxvi. 4.) And yet I saw there must be an exception in some cases, as the words immediately following show : “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” I conceive, as if he had said, “Yet it is needful, in some cases, to “answer a fool according to his folly,” otherwise he will be “wiser in his own conceit, than seven men that can render areason.’” I therefore constrained myself to approach, as near as I dared, to his own manner of writing. And I trust the occasion will plead my excuse with your Lordship, and all reasonable men. 10. One good effect of my thus meeting him on his own ground is visible already. Instead of endeavouring to defend, he entirely gives up, the First Part of his Comparison. Indeed, I did not expect this, when I observed that the Third Part was addressed to me. I took it for granted, that he had therein aimed at something like a reply to my answer: But going on, I found myself quite mistaken. He never once attempts a reply to one page, any otherwise than by screaming out, “Pertness, scurrility, effrontery;” and in subjoining that deep remark, “Paper and time would be wasted on such stuff.” (Third Part, preface, p. 15.) 11. I cannot but account it another good effect, that he is something less confident than he was before. He is likewise not more angry or more bitter, for that cannot be, but a few degrees more serious: So that I plainly perceive this is the way I am to take if I should have leisure to answer the Third Part; although it is far from my desire to write in this manner; it is as contrary to my inclination as to my custom. 12.

In your second, you cite (and murder) four or five lines. from one of my Journals, “as instances of the persuasive eloquence of the Methodist Preachers.” (Pages 1, 9.) But it unfortunately happens, that neither of the sentences you quote were spoke by any Preacher at all. You know full well the one was used only in a private letter; the other by a woman on a bed of sickness. 3. You next undertake to prove “the most insufferable pride and vanity of the Methodists.” (Section iii., p. 12, &c.) For this end you quote five passages from my Journals, and one from the Third Appeal. The first was wrote in the anguish of my heart, to which I gave vent (between God and my own soul) by breaking out, not into “confidence of boasting,” as you term it, but into those expressions of bitter sorrow : “I went to America to convert the Indians. But O ! who shall convert me?” (Vol. I. p. 74.) Some of the words which follow you have picked out, and very honestly laid before your reader, without either the beginning or end, or one word of the occasion or manner wherein they were spoken. Your next quotation is equally fair and generous: “Are they read in philosophy? So was I,” &c. (Ibid. p. 76, &c.) This whole “string of self-commendation,” as you call it, being there brought, ex professo, to prove that, notwith standing all this, which I once piqued myself upon, I was at that hour in a state of damnation | The third is a plain narrative of the manner wherein many of Bristol expressed their joy on my coming unexpectedly into the room, after I had been some time at London. (Vol.I. p. 311.) And this, I conceive, will prove the charge of high treason, as well as that of “insufferable pride and vanity.” You say, fourthly, “A dying woman, who had earnestly * Vol. VIII. pp. 205-209 of the present Edition.--EDIT. desired to see me, cried out, as I entered the room, ‘Art thou come, thou blessed of the Lord?’” (Ibid. p. 320) She did so. And what does this prove?

Your fifth charges me with an “affectation of prophesy ing.” Your first proof of it is this:-- “It was about this time that the soldier was executed. For some time I had visited him every day. But when the love of God was shed abroad in his heart, I told him, “Do not expect to see me any more: I believe Satan will separate us for a season.’ Accordingly, the next day, I was informed, the commanding , officer had given strict orders, that neither Mr. Wesley, nor any of his people, should be admitted.” (Vol. I. p. 266.) I did believe so, having seen many such things before; yet with out affecting a spirit of prophecy. But that I do claim it, you will prove, Secondly, from my mentioning “the great work which God intends, and is now beginning, to work over all the earth.” By what art you ex tract such a conclusion out of such premises, I know not. That God intends this, none who believe the Scripture doubt. And that he has begun it, both in Europe and America, any, who will make use of their eyes and ears, may know without any “miraculous gift of prophesying.” 8. In your sixth section, you assert, that I lay claim to other miraculous gifts. (Page 45.) As you borrow this objection from Mr. Church, I need only give the same answer I gave before. “‘I shall give,’” says Mr. Church, “‘but one account more, and that is, what you give of yourself.’ The sum whereof is, “At two several times, being ill, and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease. I did so. I assert the fact still. “But if these, you say, ‘ are not miraculous cures, all this is rank enthusiasm.” “I will put your argument in form: “He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not is a rank enthusiast: “But you believe those to be miraculous cures which are net: “Therefore you are a rank enthusiast. “Before I answer, I must know what you mean by miracu lous: If you term everything so which is ‘not strictly account able for by the ordinary course of natural causes, then I deny the latter part of the second proposition.

I am persuaded you have. And yet surely your brain is always cool and temperate! never “intoxicated with the heated fumes of spirituous particles !” 13. If you quote not incoherent scraps, (by which you may make anything out of anything,) but entire connected sen tences, it will appear that the rest of your quotations make no more for your purpose than the foregoing. Thus, although I allow, that on May 24, “I was much buffeted with tempta tions; but I cried to God, and they fled away; that they re turned again and again; I as often lifted up my eyes, and he sent me help from his holy place;” (Vol. I. p. 103;) it will only prove the very observation I make myself: “I was fight ing both under the law and under grace. But then I was some times, if not often, conquered; now I was always conqueror.” That sometime after, I “was strongly assaulted again, and after recovering peace and joy, was thrown into perplexity afresh by a letter, asserting that no doubt or fear could con sist with true faith; that my weak mind could not then bear to be thus sawn asunder,” will not appear strange to any who are not utter novices in experimental religion. No more than that, one night the next year, “I had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt, whether God would not lay me aside, and send other labourers into his harvest.” 14. You add, “He owns his frequent relapses into sin, for near twice ten years. Such is the case of a person who tells us that he carefully considered every step he took; one of inti mate communication with the Deity l’” Sir, I did not tell you that; though, according to custom, you mark the words as mine. It is well for you, that forging quotations is not felony. My words are, “O what an hypocrite have I been (if this be so) for near twice ten years! But I know it is not so. I know every one under the law is even as I was;” namely, from the time I was twelve years old, till considerably above thirty. “And is it strange,” you say, “that such a one should be destitute of means to resolve his scruples?

His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds. But still Methodism is the strongest barrier against the Moravian doctrines and principles.” Sir, I bear you witness you have learned one principle, at least, from those with whom you have lately conversed; namely, that no faith is to be kept with heretics; of which you have given us abundant proof. For you know I have fully answered every article of this charge; which you repeat, as if I had not opened my lips about it. You know that there is not one grain of truth in several things which you here positively assert. For instance: “His love and esteem of them increases more and more.” Not so; no more than my love and esteem for you. I love you both; but I do not much esteem either. Again: “His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds.” When? Where? I know.not that ten of my disciples, as you call them, have gone over to them for twice ten months. O Sir, consider ! How do you know but some of your disciples may tell your name? 17. With the same veracity you go on: “In “The Character of a Methodist,’ those of the sect are described as having all the virtues that can adorn the Christian profession. But in their ‘Journals’ you find them waspish, condemning all the world, except themselves; and among themselves perpetual broils and confusions, with various other irregularities and vices.” I answer, (1.) The tract you refer to (as is expressly declared in the preface) does not describe what the Methodists are already; but what they desire to be, and what they will be then when they fully practise the doctrine they hear. (2.) Be pleased to point the pages in my Journals which mention those “various irregularities and vices.” Of their “perpetual broils and confusions.” I shall speak under their proper head. You add: “Sometimes they are so far from fearing death, that they wish it: But the keenness of the edge is soon . blunted. They are full of dreadful apprehensions that the Clergy intend to murder them.” Do you mean me, Sir? I plead, Not Guilty. I never had any such apprehension. Yet I suppose you designed the compliment for me, by your dragging in two or three broken sentences from my First Journal.

Yet I suppose you designed the compliment for me, by your dragging in two or three broken sentences from my First Journal. But how little to the purpose ! seeing at the time that was written, I had never pretended to be above the fear of death. So that this is no proof of the point in view,--of the “unsteadiness of my sentiments or practice.” 18. You proceed: “One day they fancy it their duty to preach; the next, they preach with great reluctance.” Very true! But they fancy it their duty still; else they would not preach at all. This, therefore, does not prove any in equality either of sentiment or practice. “Mr. Wesley is sometimes quite averse from speaking, and then perplexed with the doubt, Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit, or a temptation from nature and the evil one?” Just of a piece with the rest. The sentence runs thus: “I went several times with a design to speak to the sailors, but could not. I mean, I was quite averse from speaking. Is not this what men commonly mean by, “I could not speak?’ And is this a sufficient cause of silence or no? Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit, or a temptation from nature or the evil one?” Sir, I was in no doubt at all on the occasion. Nor did I intend to express any in these words; but to appeal to men’s conscience, whether what they call “a prohibition from the good Spirit,” be not a mere “temptation from nature or the evilone.” 19. In the next section you are to show “the art, cunning, and sophistry of the Methodists, who, when hard pressed by argument, run themselves into inconsistency and self-contradic tion; and occasionally either defend or give up some of their favourite notions and principal points.” (Section xii. p. 102.) I dare say, Sir, you will not put them to the trial. Argu ment lies out of the way of one, -Solutos Qui captat risus hominum famamque dicacis." But to the proof. “Mr. Wesley,” you say, “at one time declares for a disinterested love of God; at another, declares, There is no one caution in all the Bible against the selfish love of God.” Nay, Sir, I will tell you what is stranger still: Mr. Wesley holds, at one time, both sides of this contradiction.

Wesley holds, at one time, both sides of this contradiction. I now declare both that “all true love is disinterested, ‘seeketh not her own;' and that there is no one caution in all the Bible against the selfish love of God.” What, have I the art to slip out of your hands again? “Pardon me,” as your old friend says, “for being jocular.” 20. You add, altius insurgens : + “But it is a considerable * One that affects the droll, and loves to raise a horse-laugh. + Rising to more exalted strains.-EDIT. offence to charge another wrongfully, and contradict himself about the doctrine of assurance.” To prove this upon me, you bring my own words: “The assurance we preach is of quite another kind from that Mr. Bedford writes against. We speak of an assurance of our present pardon; not, as he does, of our final perseverance.” (Vol. I. p. 160.) “Mr. Wesley might have considered,” you say, “that when they talk of “assurance of pardon and salvation, the world will extend the meaning of the words to our eternal state.” I do consider it, Sir; and therefore I never use that phrase either in preaching or writing. “Assurance of pardon and salvation” is an expression that never comes out of my lips; and if Mr. Whitefield does use it, yet he does not preach such an assurance as the privilege of all Christians. “But Mr. Wesley himself says, that, “though a full assur ance of faith does not necessarily imply a full assurance of our future perseverance, yet some have both the one and the other.” And now what becomes of his charge against Mr. Bedford ? And is it not mere evasion to say afterwards, ‘This is not properly an assurance of what is future?’” Sir, this argument presses me very hard 1 May I not be allowed a little evasion now? Come, for once I will try to do without it, and to answer flat and plain. And I answer, (1.) That faith is one thing; the full assur ance of faith another. (2.) That even the full assurance of faith does not imply the full assurance of perseverance: This bears another name, being styled by St. Paul, “the full assur ance of hope.” (3.) Some Christians have only the first of these; they have faith, but mixed with doubts and fears.

Paul, “the full assur ance of hope.” (3.) Some Christians have only the first of these; they have faith, but mixed with doubts and fears. Some have also the full assurance of faith, a full conviction of present pardon; and yet not the full assurance of hope; not a full conviction of their future perseverance. (4.) The faith which we preach, as necessary to all Christians, is the first of these, and no other. Therefore, (5.) It is no evasion at all to say, “This (the faith which we preach as necessary to all Christians) is not properly an assurance of what is future.” And consequently, my charge against Mr. Bedford stands good, that his Sermon on Assurance is an ignoratio elenchi, an “ignorance of the point in question,” from beginning to end. Therefore, neither do I “charge another wrongfully, nor contradict myself about the doctrine of assurances.” 21. To prove my art, cunning, and evasion, you instance next in the case of impulses and impressions. You begin, “With what pertinacious confidence have impulses, impres sions, feelings, &c., been advanced into certain rules of con duct Their followers have been taught to depend upon them as sure guides and infallible proofs.” To support this weighty charge, you bring one single scrap, about a line and a quarter, from one of my Journals. The words are these: “By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced.” Convinced of what? It immedi ately follows, “Of unbelief, having no such faith as will pre vent my heart from being troubled.” I here assert, that inward feeling or consciousness is the most infallible of proofs of unbelief,-of the want of such a faith as will prevent the heart's being troubled. But do I here “advance impressions, impulses, feelings, &c., into cer tain rules of conduct?” or anywhere else? You may just as well say, I advance them into certain proofs of transub stantiation. Neither in writing, in preaching, nor in private conversa tion, have I ever “taught any of my followers to depend upon them as sure guides or infallible proofs" of anything. Nay, you yourself own, I have taught quite the reverse; and that at my very first setting out. Then, as well as ever since, I have told the societies, “they were not to judge by their own inward feelings.

“It is well if the genuine religion of Christ has any more alliance with what you call religion, than with the Turkish pilgrimages to Mecca, or the Popish worship of our Lady of Loretto. Have not you substituted, in the place of the reli gion of the heart, something, I do not say, equally sinful, but equally vain and foreign to the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth? What else can be said even of prayer, public or private, in the manner wherein you generally perform it? as a thing of course, running round and round, in the same dull track, without either the knowledge or the love of God; without one heavenly temper, either attained or improved?” (Farther Appeal, Third Part, Vol. VIII. p. 202.) Now, Sir, what room is there for your own exclamations? --“What sort of heavenly temper is his? How can he pos sibly, consistently with charity, call this our general perform ance?” Sir, I do not. I only appeal to the conscience of you, and each particular reader, whether this is, or is not, the manner wherein you (in the singular number) generally per form public or private prayer. “How, possibly, without being omniscient, can he affirm, that we (I presume you mean all the members of our Church) pray without one heavenly temper? or know anything at all of our private devotions? How monstrous is all this 1” Recollect yourself, Sir. If your terror is real, you are more afraid than hurt. I do not affirm any such thing. I do not take upon me to know any thing at all of your private devotions. But I suppose I may inquire, without offence, and beg you seriously to examine yourself before God. So you have brought no one proof, that “scepticism, infi delity, and Atheism are either constituent parts or genuine consequences of Methodism.” Therefore your florid decla mation, in the following pages, is entirely out of its place. And you might have spared yourself the trouble of account ing for what has no being, but in your own imagination. 27. You charge the Methodists next with “an uncharitable spirit.” (Section xv. p. 115, &c.) All you advance in proof of this, as if it were from my writings, but without naming either page or book, I have nothing to do with.

115, &c.) All you advance in proof of this, as if it were from my writings, but without naming either page or book, I have nothing to do with. But what ever you tell me where to find, I shall carefully consider. I observe but one single passage of this sort; and that you have worn threadbare already : “By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced of levity and luxuri ancy of spirit, by speaking words not tending to edify; but most by my manner of speaking of my enemies.” Sir, you may print this, not only in italics, but in capitals, and yet it would do you no service. For what I was convinced of then was not uncharitableness, but, as I expressly mentioned, “levity of spirit.” 28. Of the same “uncharitable nature,” you say, is “their application of divine judgments to their opposers.” (Section xvi. p. 119, &c.) You borrow two instances from Mr. Church : But you omit the answers, which I shall therefore subjoin. His words are, “You describe Heaven as executing judg ments, immediate punishments, on those who oppose you. You say, ‘Mr. Molther was taken ill this day. I believe it was the hand of God that was upon him.’” (First Letter to Mr. Church, Vol. VIII. p. 409.) “I do; but I do not say, as a judgment for opposing me. That you say for me.” “Again, you mention,” says Mr. Church, “as an awful providence, the case of “a poor wretch, who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and had boasted to many, that he would come on Sunday, and no man should stop his mouth; but on Friday God laid his hand upon him, and on Sunday he was buried.’” “I do look on this as a manifest judgment of God on a hardened sinner for his complicated wickedness.” To repeat these objections, without taking the least notice of the answers, is one of the usual proofs of your charitable spirit. 29. You pass on to “the Methodists’ uncharitable custom of summoning their opponents to the bar of judgment.” (Section xvii. p. 123, &c.) You bring two passages from my writings to prove this.

p. 219.) Sir, do I here “summon my opponents to the bar of judg ment?” So you would make me do, by quoting only that scrap, “I cite you all, before ‘the Judge of all the earth!’” You then add, with equal charity and sincerity, “Here you have the true spirit of an enthusiast, flushed with a modest assur ance of his own salvation, and the charitable prospect of the damnation of others.” O Sir, never name modesty more ! Here end your laboured attempts to show the “uncharitable spirit” of the Methodists; who, for anything you have shown to the contrary, may be the most charitable people under the Sun. 30. You charge the Methodists next with “violation and contempt of order and authority;” (Section xviii. p. 124;) namely, the authority of the governors of the Church. I have answered every article of this charge, in the Second and Third Parts of the “Farther Appeal,” and the “Letter to Mr. Church.” When you have been so good as to reply to what is there advanced, I may possibly say something more. What you offer of your own upon this head, I shall consider without delay:-- “Women and boys are actually employed in this ministry of public preaching.” Please to tell me where. I know them not, nor ever heard of them before. You add, what is more marvellous still, “I speak from per sonal knowledge, that sometimes, a little before delivering of the elements at the communion, three or four Methodists together will take it into their heads to go away; that sometimes, while the sentences of the offertory were reading, they have called out to the Minister who carried the bason, reproaching him for ask ing alms of them; that sometimes, when the Minister has deli vered the bread into their hands, instead of eating it, they would slip it into their pockets.” Sir, you must show your face, before these stories will find credit on your bare asseveration. “Yet they are surprised,” you say, “that every man in his senses does not, without the least hesitation, join them.” Sir, I am surprised (unless you are not in your senses) at your advancing such a barefaced falsehood. 31. You go on: “Under this head may, not improperly, be considered their undutiful behaviour to the civil powers.” What proof have you of this?

42. You add, “How the case stands, in fact, as to the num ber of converts among the Methodists, and real reformation of life to the certain and known duties of the gospel, is matter of difficult determination.” Not at all. What is easier to be deter mined, than, (1.) That A. B. of Exeter, or Tiverton, was for many years a notorious drunkard, common-swearer, or Sab bath-breaker? (2.) That he is not so now; that he is really reformed from drunkenness, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, to sobriety and the other certain and known duties of the gospel? “But from what inquiry” you “can make, there is no reason to think them, for the generality, better than their neighbours.” Better than their neighbours ? Why, are they no worse than their neighbours? Then, what have you been doing all this time? But whether they are better or worse than their neigh bours, they are undeniably better than themselves: I mean, better than they were before they heard this preaching “in the certain and known duties of the gospel.” But you desire us to “consider their black art of calumny; their uncharitableness; their excessive pride and vanity; their scepticism, doubts, and disbelief of God and Christ; their disorderly practices, and contempt of authority; their bitter envying and inveterate broils among themselves; their coolness for good works.” Sir, we will consider all these, when you have proved them. Till then this is mere brutum fulmen.* 43. You proceed: “If we take Mr. Wesley’s own account, it falls very short of any considerable reformation.” You mean, if we take that part of his account which you are pleased to transcribe. Atticam elegantiam 1 + But let any impartial man read my whole aceount, and then judge. However, hence you infer that “the new reformers have made but a slow and slight progress in the reformation of manners.” As a full answer to this I need only transcribe a page or two from the last “Appeal,” pp. 237, 238, &c. : “God begins a glorious work in our land. You set your self against it with your might; to prevent its beginning where it does not yet appear, and to destroy it wherever it does. In part you prevail. You keep many from hearing the word that is able to save their souls.

It were great pity to disturb you in the enjoyment of it. A Seventh argument you ground on those words in the “Plain Account of the People called Methodists: ” “It is a point we chiefly insist upon, that orthodoxy or right opinions is a very slender part of religion, if any part of it at all.” “The plain consequence whereof is,” (so you affirm,) “that teaching and believing the fundamental errors of Popery, with the whole train of their abominations and idolatries, are of very little moment, if any.” Strain again, Sir ; pull hard, or you will never be able to drag this conclusion out of these premises. I assert, “(1.) That in a truly righteous man, right opinions are a very slender part of religion. (2.) That in an irreligious, a profane man, they are not any part of religion at all; such a man not being one jot more religious because he is orthodox.” Sir, it does not follow from either of these propositions, that wrong opinions are not an hinderance to religion; and much less, that “teaching and believing the fundamental errors of Popery, with the whole train of their abominations and idol atries,” (practised, I presume you mean, as well as taught and believed,) “are of very little moment, if any.” I am so far from saying or thinking this, that, in my printed letter to a Priest of that communion, (did you never read it, or hear of it before ?) are these express words: “I pity you much, having the same assurance, that Jesus is the Christ, and that no Romanist can expect to be saved, accord ing to the terms of his covenant.” (Vol. I. p. 220.) Do you term this “an extenuation of their abominations; a reducing them to almost a mere nothing?” 47. You argue, Eighthly, thus: “The Methodist doctrine of impressions and assurances holds equally for Popish enthu siasts.” This needs no answer; I have already shown that the Methodist doctrine in these respects is both scriptural and rational. Your Ninth argument is, “Their sudden conversions stand upon the same footing with the Popish.” You should say, “are a proof that they are promoting Popery.” I leave you to enjoy this argument also. But the dreadful one you reserve for the last; namely, our “recommending Popish books. One is the Life of Mr. de Renty, of which Mr.

(2.) When Mr. C., and two other Predestinarians, (these were the persons) affirmed they had heard both my brother and me preach Popery, they meant neither more nor less thereby than the doctrine of universal redemption. “Some connexion between the doctrines of Methodists and Papists hath been shown through this whole Comparison.” Shown / But how? By the same art of wire-drawing and deciphering, which would prove an equal connexion between the Methodists and Mahometans. “Jesuits have often mingled, and been the ringleaders, among our enthusiastic sectaries.” Sir, I am greatly obliged to you for your compliment, as well as for your parallel of Mr. Faithful Commim. And pray, Sir, at what time do you think it was that I first mingled with those enthusiastic sectaries? when I came back from Germany, or when I returned from Georgia, or while I was at Lincoln College? Although the plot itself might be laid before, when I was at Christ Church, or at the Charterhouse school. But “a Jesuit’s or enthusiast's declaring against Popery is no test of their sincerity.” Most sure; nor is a nameless per son’s declaring against Methodism any proof that he is not a Jesuit. I remember well, when a well-dressed man, taking his stand not far from Moorfields, had gathered a large company, and was vehemently asserting, that “those rogues, the Method ists, were all Papists;” till a gentleman coming by, fixed his eye on him, and cried, “Stop that man! I know him person ally; he is a Romish Priest.” I know not that anything remains on this head which bears so much as the face of an argument. So that, of all the charges you have brought, (and truly you have not been sparing) there is not one wherein your proof falls more miserably short than in this, that “the Methodists are advancing Popery.” 49. I have at length gone through your whole performance, weighed whatever you cite from my writings, and shown at large how far those passages are from proving all, or any part, of your charge.

He sent for me thither, and said, Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down * Do you know Mr. Wesley * Did not he tell you, you would be damned if you took any money of him 2 And did not he offer rudeness to your maid 2 I told him, No, my Lord; he never said any such thing to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him: But a man told me once, (who I was told was a Methodist Preacher,) that I should be damned if I did not know my sins were forgiven.’” Your Lordship replies, “I neither sent word that I would dine at their house, nor did I send for Mrs. Morgan; every word that passed between us was at her own house at Mitchel.” (Page 7.) I believe it; and consequently, that the want of exactness in this point rests on Mrs. Morgan, not on your Lordship. Your Lordship adds, “The following attestations will suffi ciently clear me from any imputation, or even suspicion, of having published a falsehood.” I apprehend otherwise; to wave what is past, if the facts now published by your Lordship, or any part of them, be not true, then certainly your Lordship will lie under more than a “suspicion of having published a falsehood.” The attestations your Lordship produces are, First, those of your Lordship's Chancellor and Archdeacon: Secondly, those of Mr. Bennet. The former attests, that in June or July, 1748, Mrs. Mor gan did say those things to your Lordship. (Page 8.) I believe she did, and therefore acquit your Lordship of being the in ventor of those falsehoods. Mr. Bennet avers, that, in January last, Mrs. Morgan re peated to him what she had before said to your Lordship. (Page 11.) Probably she might; having said those things once, I do not wonder if she said them again. Nevertheless, before Mr. Trembath and Mr. Haime she denied every word of it. To get over this difficulty, your Lordship publishes a Second Letter from Mr. Bennet, wherein he says, “On March 4th, last, Mrs.

If then you have no more than this to advance in support of your first charge, you have alleged what you are not able to prove. And the more heavy that allegation is, the more unkind, the more unjust, the more unchristian, the more inhuman, it is to bring it without proof. In support of the Second charge, you say, “Our Saviour declares our works to be the object of hisjudgment. But the Methodist, for the perdition of the souls of his followers, says our works are of no consideration at all.” Who says so? Mr. Whitefield, or my brother, or I? We say the direct contrary. But one of my “anonymous corre spondents says so.” Who is he? How do you know he is a Methodist? For aught appears, he may be another of your allies, a brother to Roger Balls. Three or threescore anonymous correspondents cannot yield one grain of proof, any more than an hundred anonymous remarkers on Theron and Aspasio. Before these can prove what the Methodists hold, you must prove that these are Methodists; either that they are original Methodists, or in connexion with them. Will you say, “If these were not Methodists themselves, they would not defend the Methodists?” I deny the consequence: Men may be far from being Methodists, and yet willing to do the Methodists justice. I have known a Clergyman of note say to another, who had just been preaching a very warm sermon, “Sir, I do not thank you at all for this. I have no acquaint ance with Mr. Whitefield or Mr. Wesley; and I do not agree with them in opinion; but I will have no more railing in my pulpit.” From the principles of the Methodists, you proceed to their practice: “They hunt,” say you, “for extraordinary marks and revelations, whereby to know the state of the soul.” The marks by which I know the state of any soul, are the inward fruit of the Spirit,-love, joy, peace, and meekness, gentleness, good ness, longsuffering, temperance, patience; shown, not by words only, but by the genuine fruit of outward holiness. Again : “They magnify their office beyond the truth, by high pretences to miraculous inspiration.” To this assertion, we have answered over and over, We pretend to no other inspi ration than that which, not only every true gospel Minister, but every real Christian, enjoys.

If we are not sick, why should we seek for a medicine to heal our sickness? What room is there to talk of our being renewed in “knowledge” or “holiness, after the image wherein we were created,” if we never have lost that image * if we are as knowing and holy now, nay, far more so, than Adam was immediately after his creation ? If, therefore, we take away this foundation, that man is by nature foolish and sinful, “fallen short of the glorious image of God,” the Christian system falls at once; nor will it deserve so honourable an appella tion, as that of a “cunningly devised fable.” 5. In considering this confutation of the Christian system, I am under some difficulty from Dr. Taylor's manner of writing. It is his custom to say the same thing (sometimes in different, sometimes in nearly the same words) six or eight, perhaps twelve or fif teen times, in different parts of his book. Now, I have accustomed myself, for many years, to say one and the same thing once only. However, to comply with his manner as far as possible, I shall add, at proper inter vals, extracts from others, expressing nearly the same sentiments which I have before expressed in my own words. 6. I am sensible, in speaking on so tender a point as this must needs be, to those who believe the Chris tian system, there is danger of a warmth which does no honour to our cause, nor is at all countenanced by the Revelation which we defend. I desire neither to show nor to feel this, but to “speak the truth in love,” (the only warmth which the gospel allows,) and to write with calmness, though not indifference. There is likewise a danger of despising our oppo ments, and of speaking with an air of contempt or disdain. I would gladly keep clear of this also; well knowing that a diffidence of ourselves is far from implying a diffidence of our cause: I distrust myself, not my argument. O that the God of the Christians may be with me! that his Spirit may give me under standing, and enable me to think and “speak as the oracles of God,” without going from them to the right hand or to the left November 30, 1756.

Why, even these were “a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that set not their heart aright. They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law. They provoked him at the sea, even at the Red Sea; ” (Psalm lxxviii. 8, 10; cvi. 7; Exod. xiv. 11, 12;) the very place where he had so signally delivered them. “They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the molten image,” (Psalm cvi. 19,) where they had heard the Lord, but a little before, saying, out of the midst of the fire, “Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them.” And how amazing was their beha viour during those whole forty years that they sojourned in the wilderness! even while he “led them in the day-time with a cloud, and all the night with a light of fire!” (Psalm lxxviii. 14.) Such were the knowledge and virtue of God’s peculiar people, (certainly the most knowing and virtuous nation which was then to be found upon the face of the earth,) till God brought them into the land of Canaan;-considerably more than two thousand years from the creation of the world. None, I presume, will say there was any other nation at that time more knowing and more virtuous than the Israelites. None can say this while he professes to believe, according to the scriptural account, that Israel was then underatheocracy, under the immediate government of God; that he conversed with their subordinate governor “face to face, as a man talketh with his friend;” and that God was daily, through him, conveying such instructions to them as they were capable of receiving. 7. Shall we turn our eyes for a moment from the scriptural to the profane account of mankind in the earliest ages? What was the general sentiment of the most polite and knowing nation, the Romans, when their learning was in its utmost perfection? Let one, who certainly was no bigot or enthusiast, speak for the rest. And he speaks home to the point: Nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus teterrima belli Causa; sed ignotis perierunt mortibus omnes Quos venerem incertam rapientes more ferarum, Viribus editior caedebat, ut in grege taurus.

What therefore they were, we may safely gather from what they are; we may judge of the past by the present. Would we know, then, (to begin with a part of the world known to very early antiquity,) what manner of men the Heathens in Africa were two or three thousand years ago? Inquire what they are now, who are genuine Pagans still, not tainted either with Mahometanism or Christianity. They are to be found in abundance, either in Negroland, or round the Cape of Good Hope. Now, what measure of knowledge have the natives of these countries? I do not say in metaphysics, mathematics, or astronomy. Of these it is plain they know just as much as their four-footed brethren; the lion and the man are equally accomplished with regard to this knowledge. I will not ask what they know of the nature of government, of the respective rights of Kings and various orders of subjects: In this re gard, a herd of men are manifestly inferior to a herd of ele phants. But let us view them with respect to common life. What do they know of the things they continually stand in need of? How do they build habitations for themselves and their families; how select and prepare their food; clothe and adorn their persons? As to their habitations, it is certain, I will not say, our horses, (particularly those belonging to the Nobility and Gentry,) but an English peasant's dogs, nay, his very swine, are more commodiously lodged; and as to their food, apparel, and ornaments, they are just suitable to their edifices: Your nicer Hottentots think meet With guts and tripe to deck their feet. With downcast eyes on Totta's legs, The love-sick youth most humbly begs, She would not from his sight remove At once his breakfast and his love. Such is the knowledge of these accomplished animals, in things which cannot but daily employ their thoughts; and wherein, consequently, they cannot avoid exerting, to the uttermost, both their natural and acquired understanding. And what are their present attainments in virtue? Are they not, one and all, “without God in the world?” having either no knowledge of him at all; no conception of anything he has to do with them, or they with him; or such concep tions as are far worse than none, as make him such a one as themselves.

What their learning is now, I know not; but notwithstand ing their boast of its antiquity, it was certainly very low and contemptible in the last century, when they were so astonished at the skill of the French Jesuits, and honoured them as almost more than human, for calculating eclipses ! And whatever progress they may have made since, in the know ledge of astronomy, and other curious, rather than useful, sciences, it is certain they are still utterly ignorant of what it most of all concerns them to know: They know not God, any more than the Hottentots; they are all idolaters to a man; and so tenacious are they of their national idolatry, that even those whom the French Missionaries called con verts, yet continued one and all to worship Confucius and the souls of their ancestors. It is true, that when this was strongly represented at Rome by an honest Dominican who came from thence, a Bull was issued out and sent over into China, forbidding them to do it any longer. But the good Fathers kept it privately among themselves, saying, the Chinese were not able to bear it. Such is their religion with respect to God. But are they not eminent for all social virtues, all that have place between man and man? Yes, according to the accounts which some have given. According to these, they are the glory of mankind, and may be a pattern to all Europe. But have not we some reason to doubt if these accounts are true? Are pride and laziness good ingredients of social virtue 7 And can all Europe equal either the laziness or pride of the Chinese Nobility and Gentry, who are too stately or too indolent even to put the meat into their own mouths? Yet they are not too proud or too indolent to oppress, to rob, to defraud, all that fall into their hands. How flagrant instances of this may any one find even in the account of Lord Anson's voyage 1 exactly agreeing with the accounts given by all our countrymen who have traded in any part of China; as well as with the observation made by a late writer in his “Geographical Grammar:” “Trade and commerce, or rather, cheating and over-reaching, is the natural bent and genius of the Chinese. Gain is their god; they prefer this to everything besides.

O yes: “The causes of war,” as the same writer observes, “are innumerable. Some of the chief are these: The ambition of Princes; or the corruption of their Ministers: Difference of opinion; as, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether the juice of the grape be blood or wine; what is the best colour for a coat, whether black, white, or grey; and whether it should be long or short, whether narrow or wide. Nor are there any wars so furious as those occasioned by such difference of opinions. “Sometimes two Princes make a war to decide which of them shall dispossess a third of his dominions. Sometimes a war is commenced, because another Prince is too strong; sometimes, because he is too weak. Sometimes our neigh bours want the things which we have, or have the things which we want: So both fight, until they take ours, or we take theirs. It is a reason for invading a country, if the peo ple have been wasted by famine, destroyed by pestilence, or embroiled by faction; or to attack our nearest ally, if part of his land would make our dominions more round and compact. “Another cause of making war is this: A crew are driven by a storm they know not where; at length they make the land and go ashore; they are entertained with kindness. They give the country a new name; set up a stone or rotten plank for a memorial; murder a dozen of the natives, and bring away a couple by force. Here commences a new right of dominion : Ships are sent, and the natives driven out or de stroyed. And this is done to civilize and convert a barbarous and idolatrous people.” But, whatever be the cause, let us calmly and impartially consider the thing itself. Here are forty thousand men gathered together on this plain. What are they going to do? See, there are thirty or forty thousand more at a little dis tance. And these are going to shoot them through the head or body, to stab them, or split their skulls, and send most of their souls into everlasting fire, as fast as they possibly can. Why so? What harm have they done to them? O none at all ! They do not so much as know them.

We are under an excellent constitution, which secures both our reli gious and civil liberty. We have religion taught in its primitive purity, its genuine, native simplicity. And how it prospers among us, we may know with great ease and certainty; for we depend not on hearsay, on the report of others, or on subtle and uncertain reasonings; but may see everything with our own eyes, and hear it with our own ears. Well, then, to make all the allowance possible, we will suppose mankind in general to be on a level, with regard to knowledge and virtue, even with the inhabitants of our fortunateislands; and take our measure of them from the present undeniable state of our own countrymen. In order to take a thorough survey of these, let us begin with the lowest, and proceed upward. The bulk of the natives of Ireland are to be found in or near their little cabins. throughout the kingdom, most of which are their own work manship, consisting of four earthen walls, covered with straw, or sods, with one opening in the side wall, which serves at once for door, window, and chimney. Here, in one room, are the cow and pig, the woman with her children, and the master of the family. Now, what knowledge have these rational animals? They know to plant and boil their potatoes, to milk their cow, and put their clothes on and off. if they have any besides a blanket; but other knowledge they have none, unless in religion. And how much do they know of this? A little more than the Hottentots, and not much. They know the names of God, and Christ, and the Virgin Mary. They know a little of St. Patrick, the Pope, and the Priest; how to tell their beads, to say Ave Maria and Pater Noster; to do what penance they are bid, to hear mass, confess, and pay so much for the pardon of their sins. But as to the nature of religion, the life of God in the soul, they know no more (I will not say, than the Priest, but) than the beasts of the field.

Do not you frequently resolve against it, and do not you break those resolutions again and again? Can you help breaking them? If so, why do you not? Are not you prone to “unreasonable desires,” either of pleasure, praise, or money? Do not you catch yourself desiring things not worth a desire, and other things more than they deserve? Are all your desires proportioned to the real intrinsic value of things? Do you not know and feel the contrary? Are not you continually liable to “foolish and hurtful desires?” And do not you frequently relapse into them, knowing them to be such; knowing that they have before “pierced you through with many sorrows?” Have you not often resolved against these desires, and as often broke your resolutions? Can you help breaking them? Do so; help it, if you can; and if not, own your helplessness. Are you throughly pleased with your own life? Nihilna vides quod nolis ? “Do you observe nothing there which you dislike?” I presume you are not too severe a judge here; nevertheless, I ask, Are you quite satisfied, from day to day, with all you say or do? Do you say nothing which you after wards wish you had not said? do nothing which you wish you had not done? Do you never speak anything contrary to truth or love? Is that right? Let your own conscience deter mine. Do you never do anything contrary to justice or mercy? Is that well done? You know it is not. Why, then, do you not amend? Moves, sed nil promoves. You resolve, and resolve, and do just as you did before. Your wife, however, is wiser and better than you. Nay, perhaps you do not think so. Possibly you said once,-- “Thou hast no faults, or I no faults can spy; Thou art all beauty, or all blindness I.” But you do not say so now : She is not without faults; and you can see them plain enough. You see more faults than you desire, both in her temper and behaviour: And yet you cannot mend them; and she either cannot or will not. And she says the very same of you. Do your parents or hers live with you? And do they, too, exercise your patience? Is there nothing in their temper or behaviour that gives you pain?

Very good: Remember, then, an honest man’s word is as good as his bond. You are preparing a receipt, or writing, for a sum of money, which you are going to pay or lend to this honest man. Writ fing ! What need of that? You do not fear he should die soon. You did not once think of it. But you do not care to trust him without it; that is, you are not sure but he is a mere knave. What, your landlord, who is a Justice of Peace; it may be, a Judge; nay, a Member of Parliament; possibly a Peer of the realm ! And cannot you trust this Honourable, if not Right Honourable, man, without a paltry receipt? I do not ask whether he is a whoremonger, an adulterer, a blasphemer, a proud, a passionate, a revengeful man: This, it may be, his nearest friends will allow; but do you suspect his honesty too? 13. Such is the state of the Protestant Christians in Eng land. Such their virtue, from the least to the greatest; if you take an impartial survey of your parents, children, ser vants, labourers, neighbours; of tradesmen, Gentry, Nobility. What then can we expect from Papists? what from Jews, Mahometans, Heathens? And it may be remarked, that this is the plain, glaring, appa rent condition of human kind. It strikes the eye of the most careless, inaccurateobserver, who does not trouble himself with any more than their outside. Now, it is certain the generality of men do not wear their worst side outward. Rather, they study to appear better than they are, and to conceal what they can of their faults. What a figure, then, would they make, were we able to touch them with Ithuriel’s spear! What a pros pect would there be, could we anticipate the transactions of the great day ! could we “bring to light the hidden things of dark ness, and make manifest the thoughts and intents of the heart!” This is the plain, naked fact, without any extenuation on the one hand, or exaggeration on the other. The present state of the moral world is as conspicuous as that of the natural. Ovid said no more concerning both, near two thou sand years since, than is evidently true at this day.

(3.) If it was the state of all heathen nations, how came it to be so? How was it, that there was not one uncorrupted nation on earth? (4.) How could any heathen nation be in this state; “without strength; unable to recover themselves” from sin, without the extraordinary interposal of the divine grace? since you are clear in this, “that all the Gentiles are endowed with light and power sufficient to know God, and perform obedience to his will, by their natural powers of reason and understanding.” (Page 111.) If you say, “They were once endowed with these powers, but now they had cast them away;” I am not satisfied still. What, did all nations cast away their natural powers of reason and understanding? Surely not. But if not, how came they all to plunge themselves into this dreadful corruption? 8. Another proof is, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Rom viii. 7, 8.) On this you observe, (1.) “Here is not one word of Adam, or any consequence of his sin upon us.” The whole passage speaks of that corruption of our nature which is the consequence of Adam’s sin. The plain and obvious sense of it is this: “What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,” (too weak to contend with our corrupt nature,) God hath done: “Sending his own Son,” he hath “condemned” that “sin” which was “in our flesh;” (verse 3;) hath given sentence that it should be destroyed: “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit;” (verse 4;) who are guided in all our thoughts, words, and actions, not by corrupt nature, but by the Spirit of God. “They that are after the flesh”--who are still guided by corrupt nature--“mind the things of the flesh;” have their thoughts and affections fixed on such things as gratify cor rupt nature; “but they that are after the Spirit”--who are under his guidance--“mind the things of the Spirit;” (verse 5;) think of, relish, love the things which the Spirit hath re vealed; which he moves us to, and promises to give us.

Taylor understands nothing else but the mere parts and powers of a man; and by “being born of the flesh, the being ‘born of a woman,’ with the constitution and natural powers of a man.” (Jennings's Vindication, p. 78, &c.) Now, let us suppose that human nature is not at all corrupted; and let us try what sense we can make of other scriptures where the word flesh is used in opposition to Spirit, as it is here: “There is no condemnation to them who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit;” (Rom. viii. 1;) that is, not after the pure, uncorrupted constitution and powers of man. Again : “They that are in the flesh cannot please God,” (verse&;) that is, they that have the parts and powers of a man. Again: “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die;” that is, if ye live suitably to the constitution and powers of your nature. Once more: How shall we understand, “The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh;” (Gal. v.17;) if flesh means nothing but the pure and uncorrupted powers of human nature? “But this text (John iii. 3) is,” according to Dr. Taylor, “so far from implying any corruption of our nature, that, ‘on the contrary, it supposes we have a nature susceptible of the best habits, and capable of being born of the Spirit.’” (Page 145.) And who ever denied it? Who ever supposed that such a corruption of nature, as for the present disables us for spiritual good, renders us incapable of being “born of the Spirit?” “But if natural generation is the means of conveying a sinful nature from our first parents to their posterity, then must itself be a sinful and unlawful thing.” I deny the consequence. You may transmit to your children a nature tainted with sin, and yet commit no sin in so doing. “Again: We produce one another only as the oak pro duces the acorn. The proper production of a child is from God. But if God produces a foetus which has sinful dispo sitions, he produces those dispositions.” (Page 146.) Your argument proves too much. It would prove God to be the author of all actual as well as original sin.

Our apprehension is indis tinct, our judgment false, our reasoning wrong in a thousand instances. So it always was; and so it is still, after all the care we can possibly take: Therefore, “our faculties are not a sound and fit for right action as Adam’s were before he sinned.’ “But any man of common understanding might havedressed and kept the garden as well as he.” I can neither affirm no deny this; for we know not how he dressed and kept it. “Nor doth it appear, that in giving names to all the crea. tures, he showed any extraordinary penetration into thei natures; for that the names he gave truly expressed the several qualities of them is a mere fiction, without any foun. dation in Scripture history, or the names of animals in the original Hebrew.” (Page 171.) This is really strange that any man of learning should be so hardy as to affirm this, after the numberless instances which have been produced of Hebrew names expressing the most essential property of each animal. And is this supposition likewise “without any foundation in Scripture history?” What is that? “And the Lord God brought every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, unto Adam, to see what he would call them;” to make proof of his understanding. “And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” (Gen. ii. 19.) Now, whether those names were Hebrew or no, (which you affect to doubt,) can it be supposed that God would have permitted them to stand, if they had not suited the nature of each creature? It is bold therefore to affirm, that “many of his posterity could have given names to them as well as he ; and that therefore this is not a proof that he had any capacity superior to us.” (Page 172.) You proceed: “Surely his eating the forbidden fruit is no evidence of superior abilities.” (Page 173.) And it is no evidence of the contrary; “seeing,” as you yourself observe, “what his special temptation was, we do not know.” There fore, neither do we know whether any of his posterity could have overcome it; much less, that “many of his posterity have over.

It is bold therefore to affirm, that “many of his posterity could have given names to them as well as he ; and that therefore this is not a proof that he had any capacity superior to us.” (Page 172.) You proceed: “Surely his eating the forbidden fruit is no evidence of superior abilities.” (Page 173.) And it is no evidence of the contrary; “seeing,” as you yourself observe, “what his special temptation was, we do not know.” There fore, neither do we know whether any of his posterity could have overcome it; much less, that “many of his posterity have over. come temptations more violent than his.” All this is talking in the dark, “not knowing what we say, neither whereof weaffirm.” “And now let any man see whether there be any ground in revelation for exalting Adam's nature as Divines have done, who have affirmed that all his faculties were eminently per. fact, and entirely set to the love and obedience of his Creator.” (Page 175.) “And yet these same suppose him to have been guilty of the vilest act that ever was committed.” (Page 176.) They suppose Adam to have been created holy and wise, like his Creator; and yet capable of falling from it. They suppose farther, that through temptations, of which we cannot possibly judge, he did fall from that state; and that hereby he brought pain, labour, and sorrow on himself and all his pos terity; together with death, not only temporal, but spiritual, and (without the grace of God) eternal. And it must be com fessed, that not only a few Divines, but the whole body of Christians in all ages, did suppose this, till after seventeen hundred years a sweet-tongued orator arose, not only more enlightened than silly Adam, but than any of his wise posterity, and declared that the whole supposition was folly, nonsense, inconsistency, and blasphemy “Objection 2. But do not the Scriptures say, Adam was created after God's own image? And do his posterity bear that image now? “The Scriptures do say, ‘God created man in his own image.” (Gen. i. 27.) But whatever that phrase means here, it doubtless means the same in Gen. ix.

23, show that we come into the world with sinful propensities? (This is all that is pertinent in the objection awkwardly proposed, page 199.) But instead of keeping to this, you spend above twenty pages in proving that this chapter does not describe a regenerate person It may, or it may not; but this does not touch the question : Do not men come into the world with sinful propensities P We have, undoubtedly, an additional proof that they do, in the words of Jeremiah: “‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?’ (xvii. 9.)” (Page 224.) On this you descant: (One instance of a thousand of your artful manner of declaiming, in order to forestal the reader's judgment, and “deceive the hearts of the simple:”) “Christians, too generally neglecting the study of the Scrip ture, content themselves with a few scraps, which, though wrong understood, they make the test of truth, in contradic tion to the whole tenor of Revelation. Thus this text has been misapplied to prove that every man’s heart is so despe rately wicked, that no man can know how wicked his heart is.” O what Tru6avoMoyla, “persuasiveness of speech !” After read ing this, I was much inclined to believe, without going a step further, that this text had been “generally misunder stood.” I thought, Probably it has been misapplied, and does not assert that every man’s “heart is desperately wicked.” But no sooner did I read over the very verses you cite, than the clear light appeared again. “‘Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.” (Verse 5.)” (Page 225.) That man, whom we are not to trust in, means man in general, cannot be denied. After repeating the intermediate verses, you yourself add, “He subjoins a reason, which demonstrates the error of trust ing in man: ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?’ (Verse 9.) This text, therefore, does not mean, Who can know his own heart, but another's?” Whether it means one or both, it positively asserts, that “the heart” of man, of men in general, of every man, is “desperately wicked.” Therefore, as to the main point contained therein, “Christians do not understand it wrong; ” (page 224;) neither misapply it at all.

Taylor believes, ‘the influence of the Spirit of God, to assist our sincere endeavours, is spoken of in the gospel, but never as supposing any natural pravity of our minds. But certain it is, that Christ opposeth our being ‘born of the Spirit, to our being ‘born of the flesh : ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John iii.6.) Therefore, the influence of the Spirit in regeneration supposeth something that we are ‘born with; which makes such an influence necessary to our being ‘born again.” And if this be not some natural pravity, let our author tell us what it is. It is plain it is not any ill habit afterward acquired; for it is something that we are born with. And if to be ‘born of the flesh, means only ‘to have the parts and powers of a man;’ and if these parts and powers are all ‘pure and uncorrupted, we have no need of any such influ ence of the Spirit to be superadded to our natural powers. Without this, our own sincere endeavours will suffice for attain ing all habits of virtue.” (Jennings's Vindication, p. 125.) I proceed to your conclusion: “Is it not highly injurious to the God of our nature, whose hands have formed and fashioned us, to believe our nature is originally corrupted?” (Taylor's Doctrine, &c., p. 256.) It is; but the charge falls not on us, but you. We do not believe “our nature is ori ginally corrupted.” It is you who believe this; who believe our nature to be in the same state, moral and intellectual, as it originally was ! Highly injurious indeed is this supposition to the God of our nature. Did he originally give us such a nature as this? so like that of a wild ass’s colt; so stupid, so stubborn, so intractable; so prone to evil, averse to good? Did his hands form and fashion us thus? no wiser or better than men at present are? If I believed this,--that men were originally what they are now,-if you could once convince me of this, I could not go so far as to be a Deist; I must either be a Manichee or an Atheist. I must either believe there was an evil God, or that there was no God at all.

“3. The former of these two is spoken of as that which renders the other so necessary. Because “that which is born of the flesh is flesh; therefore ‘we must be born of the Spirit: * Therefore this great change must be wrought in us, or we cannot ‘enter into the kingdom of God.” “4. If the latter of these is made necessary by the former, then to be ‘born flesh” is to be born corrupt and sinful. And, indeed, the word ‘flesh” is very frequently taken for the corrupt principle in man. It is always so taken when it stands opposed to ‘the Spirit, or to that inwrought principle of obedience, which itself also (taking the name of its Author) is sometimes termed ‘Spirit.” “Now, in the text, whatever or whoever is born of a man, since the fall, is denominated ‘flesh.’ And that “flesh” is here put, not for sinless frailty, but sinful corruption, we learn from its being opposed to the ‘Spirit.” Christ was born frail, as well as we, and in this sense was ‘flesh; yet, being without sin, he had no need to be ‘born of the Spirit.” This is not made necessary by any sinless infirmities, but by a sinful nature only. This alone is opposite to ‘the Spirit; thus, there fore, we must understand it here. “But Dr. Taylor says, “To be born of the flesh is only to be naturally born of a woman. I answer, Is not ‘flesh” op posed to ‘Spirit’ in this verse? Is it not the Spirit of God, which is spoken of in the latter clause, together with the principle of grace, which is in every regenerate person? And is anything beside sinful corruption opposite to the Spirit of God? No, certainly . But if so, and if wherever ‘flesh” is opposed to ‘the Spirit, it implies sinful corruption, then it is evident, to be ‘born of the flesh, is to be the sinful offspring of sinful parents, so as to have need of the renewing influ ences of the Holy Spirit, on that account, even from our birth.

‘They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Not that they actually speak lies as soon as they are born; but they natu rally incline that way, and discover that inclination as early as is possible.” (Pages 51, 52.) “‘Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.’ (Prov. xxii. 15.) ‘The rod and reproof give wisdom: But a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.’ (xxix. 15.) These passages put together are a plain testimony of the inbred corruption of young children. “Foolishness, in the former, is not barely “appetite, or a want of the knowledge attainable by instruction.” Neither of these deserve that sharp correction. But it is an indisposedness to what is good, and a strong propensity to evil. This ‘foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; it is rooted in his inmost nature. It is, as it were, ‘fastened to him by strong cords; so the original word signifies. From this corrup tion of heart in every child it is, that the ‘rod of correction’ is necessary to give him ‘wisdom: Hence it is, that “a child left to himself,’ without correction, ‘brings his mother to shame. If a child were born equally inclined to virtue and vice, why should the wise man speak of foolishness, or wicked ness, as fastened so closely to his heart? And why should ‘the rod and reproof’ be so necessary for him? These texts, there fore, are another clear proof of the corruption of human nature. “‘Those things which proceed out of the mouth, come from the heart, and they defile the man. For from within, out of the heart, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, murders:--All these things come from within, and defile the man.’ (Matt.xv. 18, 19; Mark vii. 20-23.) Our Lord here teaches, that all evil thoughts, words, and actions, of every kind, flow out of the heart, the soul of man, as being now averse to all good, and inclined to all evil.” (Pages 55, 56.) “Rom. v. 12-19. Let the reader please to read the whole passage very carefully.

A denial of original sin contradicts the main design of the gospel, which is to humble vain man, and to ascribe to God’s free grace, not man’s free will, the whole of his salvation. Nor, indeed, can we let this doctrine go with out giving up, at the same time, the greatest part, if not all, of the essential articles of the Christian faith. If we give up this, we cannot defend either justification by the merits of Christ, or the renewal of our natures by his Spirit. Dr. Taylor’s book is not, therefore, subversive of a particular branch, but of the whole scheme, of Christianity. “WI. The doctrine, therefore, of original sin is not only a truth agreeable to Scripture and reason, but a truth of the utmost importance. And it is a truth to which the Churches of Christ, from the beginning, have borne a clear testimony. “Few truths, if any, are more necessary to be known, be lieved, and thoroughly considered. For if we are not ac quainted with this, we do not know ourselves; and if we do not know ourselves, we cannot rightly know Christ and the grace of God. And on this knowledge of Christ and the grace of God depends the whole of our salvation. St. Augustine, therefore, well remarks, ‘Christianity lies properly in the knowledge of what concerns, Adam and Christ. For, certainly, if we do not know Christ, we know nothing to any purpose; and we cannot know Christ, without some knowledge of what relates to Adam, who was ‘the figure of Him that was to come.’ “‘But if this doctrine is so important, why is so little said of it in Scripture, and in the writings of the ancients?” “This is a grand mistake. We totally deny that the Scrip ture says little of it. Dr. Taylor, indeed, affirms, ‘There are but five passages of Scripture that plainly relate to the effects of Adam’s fall.” Not so: Many Scriptures, as has been shown, plainly and directly teach us this doctrine; and many others deliver that from which it may be rationally and easily de duced. Indeed, the whole doctrine of salvation by Christ, and divine grace, implies this; and each of its main branches --justification and regeneration--directly leads to it.

They kindly entertain his enemies, and will never absolutely resign themselves to his government. Thus you see the natural man is an enemy to Jesus Christ in all his offices. “3. Ye are enemies to the Spirit of God: He is the Spirit of holiness. The natural man is unholy, and loves to be so; and therefore “resists the Holy Ghost. The work of the Spirit is to ‘convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.’ But O, how do men strive to ward off these convictions, as they would a blow that threatened their life! If the Spirit dart them in, so that they cannot avoid them, does not the heart say, ‘Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?’ And indeed they treat him as an enemy, doing their utmost to stifle their convictions, and to murder these harbingers that come to prepare the way of the Lord into the soul. Some fill their hands with business, to put convictions out of their head, as Cain, who fell to building a city. Some put them off with fair promises, as Felix did; some sport or sleep them away. And how can it be other wise? For it is the work of the Holy Spirit to subdue lusts, and burn up corruption. How then can he whose lusts are dear as his life fail of being an enemy to Him? “Lastly. Ye are enemies to the law of God. Though the matural man ‘desires to be under the law,’ as a covenant of works; yet as it is a rule of life, he ‘is not subject to it, neither indeed can be.’ For, (1.) Every natural man is wedded to some sin, which he cannot part with. And as he cannot bring up his inclinations to the law, he would fain bring down the law to his inclinations. And this is a plain, standing evidence of the enmity of his heart against it. (2.) The law, set home on the awakened conscience in its spirituality, irritates corruption. It is as oil to the fire, which, instead of quenching, makes it flame the more. “When the commandment comes, sin revives.” What reason can be assigned for this, but the natural enmity of the heart against the holy law P.

But until ye know every one ‘the plague of his own heart, there is no hope of your recovery. Why will ye not believe the plain testimony of Scripture? Alas! that is the nature of your disease. ‘Thou knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. Lord, open their eyes, before they lift them up in hell, and see what they will not see now ! “Meantime, let us have a special eye upon the corruption and sin of our nature. What avails it to take notice of other sins, while this mother sin is unnoticed? This is a weighty point; in speaking to which, I shall, “1. Point at some evidences of men's overlooking the sin of their nature. As (1.) Men's being so confident of themselves, as if they were in no danger of gross sins. Many would take heinously such a caution as Christ gave his Apostles: ‘Take heed of surfeiting and drunkenness.’ They would be ready to cry out, ‘Am I a dog?’ It would raise the pride of their heart, not their fear and trembling. And all this is a proof that they know not the corruption of their own nature. (2.) Untender ness toward them that fall. Many, in this case, cast off all bowels of compassion; a plain proof that they do not know, or ‘consider themselves, lest they also be tempted.” Grace, indeed, does make men zealous against sin, in others as well as in them selves. But eyes turned inward to the corruption of nature, clothe them with pity and compassion, and fill them with thank fulness, that they were not the persons left to be such spectacles of human frailty. (3.) Men’s venturing so boldly on temptation, in confidence of their coming off fairly. Were they sensible of the corruption of their nature, they would beware of entering on the devil’s ground; as one girt about with bags of gunpowder would be loath to walk where sparks of fire were flying. “2. I shall mention a few things in which ye should have a special eye to the sin of your nature. (1) In your application to Christ. When you are with the Physician, O forget not this disease!

We have as yet nothing to do with their continuance. “For till we have learned from those sacred records” (I use your own words) “what they were, and in what manner exerted by the Apostles, we cannot form a proper judgment of those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church; and must consequently dispute at random, as chance or preju dice may prompt us, about things unknown to us.” (Page 11.) Now, Sir, if this be true, (as without doubt it is,) then it necessarily follows, that, seeing from the beginning of your book to the end, you spend not one page to inform either yourself or your readers concerning the nature of these miraculous powers, “as they are represented to us in the history of the gospel;” you dispute throughout the whole “atrandom, as chance or prejudice prompts you, about things unknown to you.” 8. Your reply to “the adversaries of your scheme,” (pages 15-27,) I may let alone for the present; and the rather, because the arguments used therein will occur again and again Only I would here take notice of one assertion, “that the miraculous powers conferred on the Apostles themselves were imparted just at the moment of their exertion, and withdrawn again as soon as those particular occasions were served.” (Page 23.) You should not have asserted this, be it true or false, without some stronger proof. “This, I say, is evident,” (Ibid.,) is not a sufficient proof; nor, “A treatise is prepared on that subject.” (Page 24.) Neither is it proved by that comment of Grotius on our Lord's promise,” which, literally translated, runs thus: “To every believer there was then given some wonderful power, which was to exert itself, not indeed always, but when there was occasion.” 9. But waving this, I grant “the single point in dispute is, whether the testimony of the Fathers be a sufficient ground to believe, that miraculous gifts subsisted at all after the days of the Apostles.” (Page 27.) But with this you interweave another question, whether the Fathers were not all fools or knaves. In treating of which, you strongly intimate, -First, that such gifts did never subsist; and, Secondly, that the Apostles were equally wise and good with the “wonder workers” (your favourite term) that followed them.

13. You go on to acquaint us with the excellences of your performance. “The reader,” you say, “will find in these sheets none of those arts which are commonly employed by disputants to perplex a good cause, or to palliate a bad one; no subtile refinements, forced constructions, or evasive dis tinctions; but plain reasoning, grounded on plain facts, and published with an honest and disinterested view to free the minds of men from an inveterate imposture. I have shown that the ancient Fathers, by whom that delusion was imposed, were extremely credulous and superstitious; possessed with strong prejudices, and scrupling no art or means by which they might propagate the same.” (Page 31.) Surely, Sir, you add the latter part of this paragraph, on purpose to confute the former; for just here you use one of the unfairest arts which the most dishonest disputant can employ, in endeavouring to forestall the judgment of the reader, and to prejudice him against those men on whom he ought not to pass any sentence before he has heard the evidence. 1. In the beginning of your “Introductory Discourse,” you declare the reasons which moved you to publish it. One of these, you say, was the late increase of Popery in this kingdom; (page 41;) chiefly occasioned, as you suppose, by the confident assertions of the Romish emissaries, that there has been a succession of miracles in their Church from the apostolic to the present age. To obviate this plea, you would “settle some rule of discerning the true from the false; so as to give a reason for admitting the miracles of one age, and rejecting those of another.” (Page 44.) 2. This has a pleasing sound, and is extremely well imagined to prejudice a Protestant reader in your favour.

You say, Thirdly, “The later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier, but more learning and less credulity. If these, then, be found either to have forged miracles them selves, or propagated what they knew to be forged, or to have been deluded by the forgeries of others, it must excite the same suspicion of their predecessors.” (Page 85.) I answer, (1.) It is not plain that the later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier: Nor, (2.) That they had less credulity. It seems, some of them had much more: Witness Hilarion’s camel, and smelling a devil or a sinner; though even he was not so quick scented as St. Pachomius, who (as many believe to this day) could “smell a heretic at a mile’s distance.” (Free Inquiry, pages 89,90.) But if, (3.) The earlier Fathers were holier than the later, they were not only less likely to delude others, but (even on Plato's supposition) to be deluded themselves: For they would have more assistance from God. 11. But you say, Fourthly, “The earlier ages of the Church were not purer than the later. Nay, in some respects they were worse. For there never was any age in which so many rank heresies were professed, or so many spurious books forged and published, under the names of Christ and his Apostles; several of which are cited by the most eminent Fathers of those ages, as of equal authority with the Scriptures. And none can doubt but those who would forge, or make use of forged books, would make use of forged miracles.” (Introd. Disc., pages 86, 87.) I answer, (1.) It is allowed that before the end of the third century the Church was greatly degenerated from its first purity. Yet I doubt not, (2.) But abundantly more rank heresies have been publicly professed in many later ages; but they were not publicly protested against, and therefore historians did not record them. (3.) You cannot but know it has always been the judgment of learned men, (which you are at liberty to refute if you are able,) that the far greater part of those spurious books have been forged by heretics; and that many more were compiled by weak, well-meaning men, from what had been orally delivered down from the Apostles.

Do the very men to whom you refer, Origen and Arnobius, in the very tracts to which you refer, give no other answer than this argument ad hominem? Stand this as another genuine proof of Dr. Middleton’s candour and impartiality | 14. A further proof of your “frank and open nature,” and of your “contenting yourself with the discharge of your own conscience, by a free declaration of your real sentiments,” (page 40,) I find in the very next page. Here you solemnly declare: “Christianity is confirmed by the evidence of such miracles as, of all others on record, are the least liable to excep tion, and carry the clearest marks of their sincerity; being wrought by Christ and his Apostles for an end so great, so important, as to be highly worthy the interposition of the Deity; wrought by mean and simple men, and delivered by eye-witnesses, whose characters exclude the suspicion of fraud.” (Page 94.) Sir, do you believe one word of what you so solemnly declare? You have yourself declared the contrary. But if you do not, where shall we have you? Or how can we believe you another time? How shall we know, I will not say, when you speak truth, but when you would have us think you do? By what criterion shall we distinguish between what is spoken in your real, and what in your personated, character? how discern when you speak as Dr. Middleton, and when as the public librarian? 15. You go on: “By granting the Romanists but a single age of miracles after the Apostles, we shall be entangled in difficulties, whence we can never extricate ourselves till we allow the same powers to the present age.” (Page 96.) I will allow them, however, three ages of miracles, and let them make what advantage of it they can. You proceed: “If the Scriptures are a complete rule,” (I reject the word sufficient, because it is ambiguous,) “we do not want the Fathers as guides, or, if clear, as interpreters. An esteem for them has carried many into dangerous errors; the neglect of them can have no ill consequences.” (Page 97.) I answer, (1.) The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice; and they are clear in all necessary points.

I want the proof. Though I am but one of the vulgar, yet I am not half so credulous as you apprehend the first Christians to have been. Ipse diri will not satisfy me; I want plain, clear, logical proof; especially when I consider how much you build upon this; that it is the main foundation whereon your hypothesis stands. You yourself must allow, that in the Epistles of St. Paul, wys, wariza Xapiapata, spiri tual gifts, does always mean more than faith, hope, and charity; that it constantly means miraculous gifts. How then do you prove, that, in the Epistles of St. Ignatius, it means quite another thing? not miraculous gifts, but only the ordinary gifts and graces of the gospel? I thought “the reader” was to “find no evasive distinctions in the following sheets.” (Preface, p. 31.) Prove then that this distinction is not evasive; that the same words mean absolutely different things. Till this is clearly and solidly done, reasonable men must believe that this and the like expressions mean the same thing in the writings of the apostolical Fathers as they do in the writings of the Apostles; namely, not the ordinary graces of the gospel, but the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. 3. You aim indeed at a proof, which would be home to the point, if you were but able to make it out. “These Fathers themselves seem to disclaim all gifts of a more extraordinary kind. Thus Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, says, “Neither I, nor any other such as I am, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed Paul.” And in the same Epistle he declares, ‘It was not granted to him to practise that, Be ye angry, and sin not.’ St. Ignatius also, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, says, “These things I prescribe to you, not as if I were somebody extraordinary. For though I am bound for his name, I am not yet perfect in Christ Jesus.” (Pages 7, 8.) I think verily, these extraordinary proofs may stand without any reply. 4.

6. I was a little surprised that you should take your leave of the apostolic Fathers so soon. But, upon looking forward, my surprise was at an end: I found you was not guilty of any design to spare them; but only delayed your remarks till the reader should be prepared for what might have shocked him, had it stood in its proper place. I do not find, indeed, that you make any objection to any part of the Epistles of Ignatius; no, nor of the Catholic Epistle, as it is called, which is inscribed with the name of Barnabas. This clearly convinces me, you have not read it; I am apt to think, not one page of it; seeing, if you had, you would never have let slip such an opportunity of exposing one that was called an apostolic Father. 7. But it would have been strange, if you had not somewhere brought in the famous phoenix of Clemens Romanus. And yet you are very merciful upon that head, barely remarking con cerning it, that “he alleged the ridiculous story of the phoenix, as atype and proof of the resurrection. Whether all the heathen writers treat it as nothing else but a mere fable, I know not.” (Page 55.) But that it is so, is certain; and consequently the argument drawn from it is weak and inconclusive. Yet it will not hence follow, either that Clemens was a wicked man, or that he had none of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. 8. There is no real blemish to be found in the whole character of St. Polycarp. But there is one circumstance left upon record concerning him which has the appearance of weakness. And with this you do not fail to acquaint your reader at a convenient season; namely, “that in the most ancient dispute concerning the time of holding Easter, St. Polycarp and Anicetus severally alleged apostolic tradition for their different practice.” (Page 60.) And it is not improbable,. that both alleged what was true; that in a point of so little importance the Apostles varied themselves; some of them observing it on the fourteenth day of the moon, and others not.

For if you say, “The writers following the apostolic Fathers do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts; therefore they had none;” by a parity of reason you must say, “The writers following the Apostles do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts; therefore the Apostles had none.” 4. Your next argument against the existence of those gifts is, “that the Fathers do not tell us the names of them which had them.” This is not altogether true. The names of Justin Martyr and Cyprian are pretty well known; as is, among the learned, that of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. (Pages 106, 212.) But what, if they did not? Supposing miraculous powers were openly exerted in the Church, and that not only they themselves, but every oine else, might see this whenever they pleased; if any Heathen might come and see whenever he pleased, what could a reasonable man desire more? What did it signify to him to know the names of those whom he heard prophesying, or saw working miracles? Though, without doubt, whoever saw the miracles wrought, might easily learn the names of those that wrought them : which, nevertheless, the Christians had no need to publish abroad, to expose them so much the more to the rage and malice of their persecutors. 6. Your third argument is, “The Christian workers of mira cles were always charged with imposture by their adversaries. Lucian tells us, “Whenever any crafty juggler went to the Christians, he grew rich immediately.’ And Celsus represents the Christian wonder-workers as mere vagabonds and common cheats, who ranmbled about to fairs and markets.” (Page 23.) And is it any wonder, that either a Jew or a Heathen should represent them thus? Sir, I do not blame you for not believing the Christian system, but for betraying so gross a partiality; for gleaning up every scrap of heathen scandal, and palming it upon us as unquestionable evidence; and for not translating even these miserable fragments with any accuracy or faithful ness. Instead of giving us the text, bad as it is, you commonly substitute a paraphrase yet worse. And this the unlearned reader naturally supposes to be a faithful translation. It is no credit to your cause, if it needs such supports. And this is no credit to you, if it does not.

10. “These things,” you add, “are so strange, as to give just reason to suspect that there was some original fraud in the case, and that those strolling wonder-workers, by a dexterity of juggling, imposed upon the pious Fathers, whose strong prejudices, and ardent zeal for the interest of Christianity, would dispose them to embrace, without examination, what ever seemed to promote so good a cause.” (Page 25.) You now speak tolerably plain, and would be much disappointed if those who have no “strong prejudices for Christianity” did not apply what you say of these “strolling wonder-workers” to the Apostles, as well as their successors. 11. A very short answer will suffice: “These things are so strange.” They are more strange than true. You have not proved one jot or tittle of them yet. Therefore, the conse quences you draw must fall to the ground till you find them some better support. 12. Nay, but “it is certain and notorious,” you say, “that this was really the case in some instances;” that is, that “strolling, juggling wonder-workers imposed upon the pious Fathers.” (Page 26.) Sir, I must come in again with my cuckoo's note,--The proof! Where is the proof! Till this is produced I cannot allow that “this is certain and notorious,” even in one individual instance. 13. Let us now stand still, and observe what it is you have made out, under this Second head. What you proposed was, “to throw together all which the primitive Fathers had delivered concerning the persons said to be then endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.” And how have * Adjicient multa de autoritate cujusque doctoris hasretici, illos mortuos susci ‘asse, debiles reformasse, &c. you executed what you proposed? You have thrown together a quotation from a Jew, two from Heathens, three quarters of a line from Origen, and three lines from Tertullian | Nothing at all, it is true, to the point in question. But that you could not help. 14. And this, it seems, is “all you have been able to draw from any of the primitive writers, concerning the persons who were endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost!” (Page 21.) Permit me, Sir, to apply to you what was spoken on another occasion: “Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with ; ” neither sufficient skill, nor industry and appli cation.

2. It is by this principle only that I can account for your adding: “Which doctrine” (that of their enjoying all sensual pleasures) “he deduces from the testimony of the Prophets, and of St. John the Apostle; and was followed in it by the Fathers of the second and third centuries.” The doctrine (as you very well know) which Justin deduced from the Prophets and the Apostles, and in which he was undoubtedly followed by the Fathers of the second and third centuries, is this: The souls of them who have been martyred for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who have not worshipped the beast, neither received his mark, shall live and reign with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead shall not live again, until the thousand years are finished. Now, to say they believed this, is neither more nor less than to say, they believed the Bible. 6. The second heresy you charge him with is the believing, “that those ‘sons of God’ mentioned Gen. vi. 4, of whom it is there said, ‘They came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them,’ were evil angels.” (Page 32.) And I allow, he too lightly received this on the testimony of the Jewish Commentators. But this only proves that he was a fallible man; not that he was a knave, or that he had not eyes and ears. 7. You charge him, Thirdly, “with treating the spurious books, published under the names of the Sibyl and Hystaspes, with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures.” (Page 33.) His words are: “By the power of evil spirits, it was made death to read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl, or of the Prophets.” Well; how does this prove that he treated those books with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures? “But it is certain,” you say, “that, from this example and authority of Justin, they were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and Rulers of the Church, through all succeeding ages.” (Ibid.) I do not conceive it is certain. I wait your proof, first, of the fact; next, of the reason you assign for it.

I wait your proof, first, of the fact; next, of the reason you assign for it. The fact itself, that “these books were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and Rulers through all succeeding ages,” is in nowise proved by that single quotation from Clemens Alex andrinus, wherein he urges the Heathens with the testimonies of their own authors, of the Sibyl, and of Hystaspes. (Page 34.) We cannot infer from hence that he himself held them “in the highest veneration; ” much less that all the Fathers did. And as to the reason you assign for that veneration,--the example and authority of Justin,--you cite no writer of any kind, good or bad. So he that will believe it, may. But some, you tell us, “impute the forging these books to Justin.” Be pleased to tell us, likewise, who those are; and what grounds they allege for that imputation. Till them, it can be of no signification. 8. You charge him, Fourthly, “with believing that silly story concerning the Septuagint version of the Old Testa ment; with saying, that he himself, when at Alexandria, saw the remains of the cells in which the translators were shut up; and with making a considerable mistake in the chronology relating thereto.” (Page 37.) And if all this be allowed, and, over and above, that he “frequently cites apocryphal books, and cites the Scriptures by memory;” what have you gained toward the proof of your grand conclusion, that “he was either too great a fool, or too great a knave, to be believed touching a plain matter of fact?” 9. You seem sensible of this, and therefore add, Fifthly: “It will be said, perhaps, that these instances show a weak ness of judgment, but do not touch the credit of Justin as a witness of fact.” (Page 29.) But can you scrape up nothing from all the dunghills of antiquity that does? I dare say, you will do your utmost. And, first, you reply, “The want of judgment alone may, in some cases, disqualify a man from being a good witness. Thus, Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells.

Thus, Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells. And so he was by those who told him, there was a statue at Rome, inscribed, Simoni Deo Sancto; whereas it was really inscribed, Semoni Sanco Deo; to an old deity of the Sabines. Now,” say you, “if he was deceived in such obvious facts, how much more easily would he be deceived by subtle and crafty impostors!” (Pages 40, 41.) Far less easily. A man of good judgment may be deceived in the inscriptions of statues, and points of ancient history. But, if he has only eyes and ears, and a small degree of common sense, he cannot be deceived in facts where he is both an eye and ear witness. 10. For a parting blow, you endeavour to prove, Sixthly, that Justin was a knave, as well as a fool. To this end you remark, that “he charges the Jews with erasing three passages out of the Greek Bible; one whereof stands there still, and the other two were not expunged by some Jew, but added by some Christian. Nay, that able critic and Divine, John Croius,” (you know when to bestow honourable appel lations,) “says Justin forged and published this passage for the confirmation of the Christian doctrine, as well as the greatest part of the Sibylline oracles, and the sentences of Mercurius.” (Page 42.) With far greater probability than John Croius asserts that Justin forged these passages, a man of candour would hope that he read them in his copy (though incorrect) of the Greek Bible. And till you disprove this, or prove the assertion of Croius, you are got not a jot farther still. But, notwith standing you have taken true pains to blacken him, both with regard to his morals and understanding, he may still be an honest man, and an unexceptionable witness, as to plain facts done before his face. 11. You fall upon Irenaeus next, and carefully enumerate all the mistakes in his writings. As, First, that he held the doctrine of the millennium, and related a weak fancy of Tapias concerning it. Secondly: That he believed our Saviour to have lived fifty years. Thirdly: That he believed Enoch and Elias were translated, and St. Paul caught up to that very paradise from which Adam was expelled.

13, 14.) 22. You have now finished the third thing you proposed; which was, “to show the particular characters of the several Fathers, who attest” that they were eye and ear witnesses of the extraordinary gifts in the primitive Church. You named nine of these : Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theo philus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius; at the same time observing, that many other writers attest the same thing. But let the others stand by. Are these good men and true? That is the present question. You say, “No; ” and to prove that these nine are knaves, bring several charges against two of them. These have been answered at large: Some of them proved to be false; some, though true, yet not invalidating their evidence. But supposing we wave the evidence of these two, here are seven more still to come. O, but you say, “If there were twice seven, they only repeat the words which these have taught them.” You say; but how often must you be reminded, that saying and proving are two things? I grant, in three or four opinions, some (though not all) of these were mistaken, as well as those two. But this by no means proves that they were all knaves together; or that if Justin Martyr or Irenaeus speaks wrong, I am therefore to give no credit to the evidence of Theophilus or Minutius Felix. 23. You have therefore made a more lame piece of work on this head, if possible, than on the preceding. You have promised great things, and performed just nothing. You have left above three parts in four of your work entirely untouched; as these two are not a fourth part even of the writers you have named, as attesting the continuance of the “extraordinary gifts” after the age of the Apostles. But you have taught that trick at least to your “vagrant jugglers,” to supply the defect of all other arguments. At every dead lift you are sure to play upon us these dear creatures of your own imagination. They are the very strength of your battle, your tenth legion. Yet if a man impertinently calls for proof of their existence, if he comes close and engages them hand to hand, they immediately vanish away. IV.

Of this you seem not insensible already, and therefore fly away to your favourite supposition, that “they were not cured at all; that the whole matter was a cheat from the beginning to the end.” But by what arguments do you evince this? The first is, “The Heathens pretended to do the same.” Nay, and “managed the imposture with so much art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it; but insisted always that it was performed by demons, or evil spirits.” (Ibid.) But still the Heathens maintained, “the cures were wrought by their gods, by AEsculapius in parti cular.” And where is the difference? seeing, as was observed before, “the gods of the Heathens were but devils.” 3. But you say, “Although public monuments were erected in proof and memory of these cures, at the time when they were.performed, yet it is certain all those heathen miracles were pure forgeries.” (Page 79.) How is it certain? If you can swallow this without good proof, you are far more cre dulous than I. I cannot believe that the whole body of the Heathens, for so many generations, were utterly destitute of common sense, any more than of common honesty. Why should you fix such a charge on whole cities and countries? You could have done no more, if they had been Christians! 4. But “diseases, though fatal and desperate, are oft sur prisingly healed of themselves.” And therefore “we cannot pay any great regard to such stories, unless we knew more pre cisely in this case the real bounds between nature and miracle.” (Ibid.) Sir, I understand you well. The drift of the argu ment is easily seen. It points at the Master, as well as his servants; and tends to prove that, after all this talk about miraculous cures, we are not sure there were ever any in the world. But it will do no harm. For, although we grant, (1.) That some recover, even in seemingly desperate cases; and, (2.) That we do not know, in any case, the precise bounds between nature and miracle; yet it does not follow, Therefore I cannot be assured there ever was a miracle of healing in the world.

For, although we grant, (1.) That some recover, even in seemingly desperate cases; and, (2.) That we do not know, in any case, the precise bounds between nature and miracle; yet it does not follow, Therefore I cannot be assured there ever was a miracle of healing in the world. To explain this by instance: I do not precisely know how far nature may go in healing, that is, restoring sight to, the blind; yet this I assuredly know, that if a man born blind is restored to sight by a word, this is not nature, but miracle. And to such a story, well attested, all reasonable men will pay the highest regard. 5. The sum of what you have advanced on this head, is, (1.) That the Heathens themselves had miraculous cures among them. (2.) That oil may cure some diseases by its natural efficacy. And, (3.) That we do not know the precise bounds of nature. All this I allow. But all this will not prove that no miraculous cures were performed, either by our Lord and his Apostles, or by those who lived in the three succeeding centuries. Section III. 1. The Third of the miraculous powers said to have been in the primitive Church, is that of casting out devils. The testimonies concerning this are out of number, and as plain as words can make them. To show, therefore, that all these signify nothing, and that there were never any devils cast out at all, neither by the Apostles, nor since the Apostles, (for the argument proves both or neither,) is a task worthy of you. And, to give you your just praise, you have here put forth all your strength. 2. And yet I cannot but apprehend, there was a much shorter way. Would it not have been readier to overthrow all those testimonies at a stroke, by proving, there never was any devil in the world? Then the whole affair of casting him out had been at an end.

4. However, “Not one of these Fathers made any scruple of using the hyperbolical style,” (that is, in plain English, of lying,) “as an eminent writer of ecclesiastical history declares.” (Ibid.) You should have said, an impartial writer. For who would scruple that character to Mr. Le Clerc? And yet I cannot take either his or your bare word for this. Be pleased to produce a little proof. Hitherto you have proved absolutely nothing on the head; but, as your manner is, taken all for granted. 5. You next relate that famous story from Tertullian: “A woman went to the theatre, and returned possessed with a devil. When the unclean spirit was asked how he dared to assault a Christian, he answered, ‘I found her on my own ground.’” (Ibid.) After relating another, which you endeavour to account for naturally, you intimate that this was a mere lie of Tertullian's. But how is that proved? Why, “Tertullian was an utter enemy to plays and public shows in the theatre.” He was so: But can we infer from thence that he was an utter enemy to common honesty? 6. You add: “The Fathers themselves own that even the Jews, yea, and the Heathens, cast out devils. Now, it will be granted, that these Jewish and Heathen exorcists were mere cheats and impostors. But the Fathers believed they really cast them out. Now, if they could take their tricks for the effects of a supernatural power, well might they be deceived by their own impostors. Or they might think it convenient to oppose one cheat to another.” (Pages 84, 87, 88.) Deceived, say you, by their own impostors ? Why, I thought they were the very men who set them to work! who opposed one cheat to another! Apt scholars, who acted their part so well, as even to deceive their masters! But, whatever the Heathen were, we cannot grant that all the “Jewish exorcists were impostors.” Whether the Heathens cast out devils or not, it is sure the sons of the Jews cast them out. I mean, upon supposition, that Jesus of Nazareth cast them out; which is a point not here to be disputed. 7.

11. You observe, Fourthly, “that great numbers of demoniacs subsisted in those early ages, whose chief habita stion was in a part of the church, where, as in a kind of hospital, they were under the care of the exorcists; which will account for the confidence of those challenges made to the Heathens by the Christians, to come and see how they could drive the devils out of them, while they kept such numbers of them in constant pay; always ready for the show; tried and disciplined by your exorcists to groan and howl, and give proper answers to all questions.” (Pages 94, 95.) So now the correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist is grown more close than ever! But the misfortune is, this observation, likewise, wholly overthrows that which went before it. For if all the groaning and howling, and other symptoms, were no more than what they “were disciplined to by their exorcists;” (page 95;) then it cannot be, that “many of them could not possibly be cured by all the power of those exorcists 1” (Page 92.) What! could they not possibly be taught to know their masters; and when to end, as well as to begin, the show? One would think that the cures wrought upon these might have been more than temporary. Nay, it is surprising, that, while they had such numbers of them, they should ever suffer the same person to show twice. 12. You observe, Fifthly, “that, whereas this power of casting out devils had hitherto been in the hands only of the meaner part of the laity;” (that wants proof;) “it was, about the year 367, put under the direction of the Clergy; it being then decreed by the Council of Laodicea, that none should be exorcists but those appointed (or ordained) by the Bishop. But no sooner was this done, even by those who favoured and desired to support it, than the gift itself gradually decreased and expired.” (Page 95.) You here overthrow, not only your immediately preceding observation, (as usual,) but likewise what you have observed elsewhere,--that the exorcists began to be ordained “about the middle of the third century.” (Page 86.) If so, what need of decreeing it now, above an hundred years after? Again: If the exorcists were ordained an hundred years before this Council sat, what change was made by the decree of the Council?

The strength of your argument constantly lies in a loose and paraphrastical manner of translating. The strength of mine lies in translating all in the most close and literal manner; so that closeness of translation strengthens mine, in the same proportion as it weakens your arguments; a plain proof of what you elsewhere observe, that you use “no subtle refinements or forced constructions.” (Preface, p. 31.) * Necesse est, ercidat sensu. 15. But to return to Cyprian: “I cannot forbear,” you say, “relating two or three more of his wonderful stories. The first is, A man who had denied Christ was presently struck dumb: The second, A woman who had done so was seized by an unclean spirit, and soon after died in great anguish: The third, of which he says he was an eye-witness, is this,--The heathen Magistrates gave to a Christian infant part of what had been offered to an idol. When the Deacon forced the consecrated wine on this child, it was immediately seized with convulsions and vomiting; as was a woman who had apostatized, upon taking the conse crated elements.” (Pages 112, 113.) The other two relations Cyprian does not affirm of his own personal knowledge. “Now, what can we think,” say you, “of these strange stories, but that they were partly forged, partly dressed up in this tragical form, to support the discipline of the Church in these times of danger and trial?” (Page 115.) Why, many will think that some of them are true, even in the manner they are related; and that if any of them are not, Cyprian thought they were, and related them in the sincerity of his heart. Nay, perhaps some will think that the wisdom of God might, “in those times of danger and trial,” work things of this kind, for that very end, “to support the dis cipline of the Church.” And till you show the falsehood, or at least the improbability, of this, Cyprian's character stands untainted; not only as a man of sense, (which you yourself allow,) but likewise of eminent integrity; and consequently it is beyond dispute, that visions, the fifth miraculous gift, remained in the Church after the days of the Apostles. Section V. 1. The sixth of the miraculous gifts which you enumerated above, namely, “the discernment of spirits,” you just name, and then entirely pass over.

For there may be many reasons in the depth of the wisdom of God, for his doing many things at various times and places, either by his natural or supernatural power, which were never recorded at all. And abundantly more were recorded once, and that with the fullest evidence, whereof, nevertheless, we find no certain evidence now, at the distance of fourteen hundred years. 6. Perhaps this may obtain in the very case before us. Many may have spoken with new tongues, of whom this is not recorded; at least, the records are lost in a course of so many years: Nay, it is not only possible that it may be so, but it is absolutely certain that it is so; and you yourself must acknow ledge it; for you acknowledge that the Apostles, when in strange countries, spoke with strange tongues; that St. John, for instance, when in Asia Minor, St. Peter, when in Italy, (if he was really there,) and the other Apostles, when in other countries, in Parthia, Media, Phrygia, Pamphylia, spoke each to the natives of each, in their own tongues, the wonderful works of God. And yet there is no authentic record of this: There is not in all history, one well-attested instance of any particular Apostle's exercising this gift in any country what soever. Now, Sir, if your axiom were allowed, what would be the consequence? Even that the Apostles themselves no more spoke with tongues than any of their successors. 7. I need, therefore, take no trouble about your subsequent reasonings, seeing they are built upon such a foundation. Only I must observe an historical mistake which occurs toward the bottom of your next page. Since the Reformation, you say, “This gift has never once been heard of, or pretended to, by the Romanists themselves.” (Page 122.) But has it been pretended to (whether justly or not) by no others, though not by the Romanists? Has it “never once been heard of” since that time? Sir, your memory fails you again: It has undoubtedly been pretended to, and that at no great distance either from our time or country. It has been heard of more than once, no farther off than the valleys of Dauphiny.

15. “I have now,” you say, “thrown together all which I had collected for the support of my argument;” (page 187;) after a lame recapitulation of which you add with an air of triumph and satisfaction: “I wish the Fathers the ablest advocates which Popery itself can afford; for Protestantism, I am sure, can supply none whom they would choose to retain in their cause; none who can defend them without contradicting their own profession and disgracing their own character; or produce anything, but what deserves to be laughed at, rather than answered.” (Pages 188, 189.) Might it not be well, Sir, not to be quite so sure yet? You may not always have the laugh on your side. You are not yet infallibly assured, but that even Protestantism may produce something worth an answer. There may be some Protestants, for aught you know, who have a few grains of common sense left, and may find a way to defend, at least the Ante-Nicene Fathers, without “disgracing their own character.” Even such an one as I have faintly attempted this, although I neither have, nor expect to have, any preferment, not even to be a Lambeth Chaplain; which if Dr. Middleton is not, it is not his own fault.- V. l. The last thing you proposed was, “to refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.” To what you have offered on this head, I must likewise attempt a short reply. You say, “It is objected, First, that by the character I have given of the Fathers, the authority of the books of the New Testament, which were transmitted to us through their hands, will be rendered precarious and uncertain.” (Page 190.) After a feint of confuting it, you frankly acknowledge the whole of this objection. “I may venture,” you say, “to declare, that if this objection be true, it cannot hurt my argument. For if it be natural and necessary, that the craft and credulity of witnesses should always detract from the credit of their testimony, then who can help it? And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.” (Page 192.) “If it be proved !” Very true.

But hold. You are going to prove it too: “For,” say you, “should the like case happen now, that any Methodist, Moravian, or French prophet,” (right skilfully put together,) “should publish an apology for his brethren, addressed to the King and Parliament; is it not wholly improbable, that the Government would pay any regard to it?” You should add, (to make the parallel complete,) “ or know that any such was addressed to them.” No: I conceive the improbability supposed lies wholly on the other side. Whatever the Government of heathen Rome was, (which I presume you will not depreciate,) the Govern ment of England is remarkable for tenderness to the very meanest subject. It is therefore not improbable in the least, that an address from some thousands of those subjects, how contemptible soever they were generally esteemed, would not be totally disregarded by such a Government. But that they should “not know that any such had been addressed to them,” is not only improbable, but morally impossible. If therefore it were possible for the Heathens to “have a worse opinion of the ancient Christians than we,” you say, “have of our modern fanatics,” still it is utterly incredible that the Roman Government should, not only “take no notice of their apologies,” but “not even know that any such were addressed to them.” 4. “But the publishing books was more expensive then than it is now; and therefore we cannot think the Christians of those days were able to provide such a number of them as was sufficient for the information of the public.” (Pages 198, 199.) Nay, if they were not able to provide themselves food and raiment, they would be sure to provide a sufficient number of these; sufficient, at least, for the information of the Emperor and Senate, to whom those apologies were addressed. And how great a number, do you suppose, might suffice for them? How many hundred or thousand copies? I apprehend the Emperor would be content with one; and one more would be needful for the Senate. Now, I really believe the Christians of those days were able to provide both these copies; nay, and even two more; if it should have fallen out, that two or three Emperors were on the throne; even though we should suppose that in Tertullian’s time there were but forty thousand of them in all Rome. 5.

You have only now and then, as it were by the by, made any attempt to prove it. And till this is done, you have done nothing, with all the pother that you have made. 14. You reserve the home stroke for the last : “There is hardly a miracle said to be wrought in the primitive times, but what is said to be performed in our days. But all these modern pretensions we ascribe to their true cause,--the craft of a few, playing upon the credulity of the many, for private interest. When, therefore, we read of the same things done by the ancients, and for the same ends of acquiring wealth, credit, or power; how can we possibly hesitate to impute them to the same cause of fraud and imposture?” (Page 230.) The reason of our hesitation is this: They did not answer the same ends. The modern Clergy of Rome do acquire credit and wealth by their pretended miracles. But the ancient Clergy acquired nothing by their miracles, but to be “afflicted, destitute, tormented.” The one gain all things thereby; the others lost all things. And this, we think, makes some differ ence. “Even unto this present hour,” says one of them, (writing to those who could easily confute him, if he spoke not the truth,) “we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat. We are become as the filth of the world, as the off scouring of all things unto this day.” (1 Cor. iv. 11--13.) Now, Sir, whatever be thought of the others, we apprehend, such Clergy as these, labouring thus, unto the death, for such credit and wealth, are not chargeable with fraud and imposture. VI. I have now finished what I had to say with regard to your book. Yet I think humanity requires me to add a few words concerning some points frequently touched upon therein, which perhaps you do not so clearly understand. We have been long disputing about Christians, about Chris tianity, and the evidence whereby it is supported. But what do these terms mean? Who is a Christian indeed? What is real, genuine Christianity? And what is the surest and most accessible evidence (if I may so speak) whereby I may know that it is of God?

with all his wisdom and philosophy, . What points of knowledge did he gain * That life is sacred all,--and vain : Sacred, how high, and vain, how low, [e could not tell; but died to know. 9. “He died to know !” and so must you, unless you are now a partaker of Christian faith. O consider this ! Nay, and consider, not only how little you know of the immensity of the things that are beyond sense and time, but how uncer tainly do you know even that little ! How faintly glimmering a light is that you have ! Can you properly be said to know any of these things? Is that knowledge any more than bare conjecture? And the reason is plain. You have no senses suitable to invisible or eternal objects. What desiderata then, especially to the rational, the reflecting, part of man kind are these? A more extensive knowledge of things invisible and eternal; a greater certainty in whatever know ledge of them we have; and, in order to both, faculties capable of discerning things invisible. 10. Is it not so? Let impartial reason speak. Does not every thinking man want a window, not so much in his neighbour's, as in his own, breast? He wants an opening there, of whatever kind, that might let in light from eternity. He is pained to be thus feeling after God so darkly, so uncertainly; to know so little of God, and indeed so little of any beside material objects. He is concerned, that he must see even that little, not directly, but in the dim, sullied glass * of sense; and consequently so imperfectly and obscurely, that it is all a mere enigma still. 11. Now, these very desiderata faith supplies. It gives a more extensive knowledge of things invisible, showing what eye had not seen, nor ear heard, neither could it before enter into our heart to conceive. And all these it shows in the clear est light, with the fullest certainty and evidence. For it does not leave us to receive our notices of them by mere reflection from the dull glass of sense; but resolves a thousand enigmas of the highest concern by giving faculties suited to things invisible.

For it does not leave us to receive our notices of them by mere reflection from the dull glass of sense; but resolves a thousand enigmas of the highest concern by giving faculties suited to things invisible. O who would not wish for such a faith, were it only on these accounts How much more, if by this I may receive the promise, I may attain all that holiness and happiness ! 12. So Christianity tells me; and so I find it, may every real Christian say. I now am assured that these things are so: I experience them in my own breast. What Christianity (considered as a doctrine) promised, is accomplished in my soul. And Christianity, considered as an inward principle, is the completion of all those promises. It is holiness and hap piness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit; a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life. Section III. 1. And this I conceive to be the strongest evidence of the truth of Christianity. I do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree. And yet I cannot set it on a level with this. It is generally supposed, that traditional evidence is weak ened by length of time; as it must necessarily pass through so many hands, in a continued succession of ages. But no length of time can possibly affect the strength of this internal evidence. It is equally strong, equally new, through the course of seventeen hundred years. It passes now, even as it has done from the beginning, directly from God into the believing soul. Do you suppose time will ever, dry up this stream ? O no ! It shall never be cut off: Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis avum.* 2. Traditional evidence is of an extremely complicated nature, necessarily including so many and so various consi derations, that only men of a strong and clear understanding can be sensible of its full force. On the contrary, how plain * It flows on, and will for ever flow. and simple is this; and how level to the lowest capacity!

and simple is this; and how level to the lowest capacity! Is not this the sum : “One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see?” An argument so plain, that a peasant, a woman, a child, may feel all its force. 3. The traditional evidence of Christianity stands, as it were, a great way off; and therefore, although it speaks loud and clear, yet makes a less lively impression. It gives us an account of what was transacted long ago, in far distant times as well as places. Whereas the inward evidence is intimately present to all persons, at all times, and in all places. It is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, if thou believest in the Lord Jesus Christ. “This,” then, “is the record,” this is the evidence, emphatically so called, “that God hath given unto us eternal life; and this life is in his Son.” 4. If then, it were possible (which I conceive it is not) to shake the traditional evidence of Christianity, still he that has the internal evidence (and every true believer hath the witness or evidence in himself) would stand firm and unshaken. Still he could say to those who were striking at the external evidence, “Beat on the sack of Anaxagoras.” But you can no more hurt my evidence of Christianity, than the tyrant could hurt the spirit of that wise man. 5. I have sometimes been almost inclined to believe, that the wisdom of God has, in most later ages, permitted the external evidence of Christianity to be more or less clogged and incumbered for this very end, that men (of reflection especially) might not altogether rest there, but be constrained to look into themselves also, and attend to the light shining in their hearts. Nay, it seems (if it may be allowed for us to pry so far into the reasons of the divine dispensations) that, particularly in this age, God suffers all kind of objections to be raised against the traditional evidence of Christianity, that men of understanding, though unwilling to give it up, yet, at the same time they defend this evidence, may not rest the whole strength of their cause thereon, but seek a deeper and firmer support for it. 6.

Reason, rally, laugh them out of their dead, empty forms, void of spirit, of faith, of love. Convince them, that such mean pageantry (for such it manifestly is, if there is nothing in the heart correspondent with the outward show) is absolutely unworthy, you need not say of God, but even of any man that is endued with common understanding. Show them, that while they are endeavouring to please God thus, they are only beating the air. Know your time; press on; push your victories, till you have conquered all that know not God. And then He, whom neither they nor you know now, shall rise and gird himself with strength, and go forth in his almighty love, and sweetly conquer you all together. 9. O that the time were come ! How do I long for you to be partakers of the exceeding great and precious promise ! How am I pained when I hear any of you using those silly terms, which the men of form have taught you, calling the mention of the only thing you want, cant 1 the deepest wisdom, the highest happiness, enthusiasm What ignorance is this ! How extremely despicable would it make you in the eyes of any but a Christian | But he cannot despise you, who loves you as his own soul, who is ready to lay down his life for your sake. 10. Perhaps you will say, “But this internal evidence of Christianity affects only those in whom the promise is fulfilled. It is no evidence to me.” There is truth in this objection. It does affect them chiefly, but it does not affect them only. It cannot, in the nature of things, be so strong an evidence to others as it is to them. And yet it may bring a degree of evidence, it may reflect some light on you also. For, First, you see the beauty and loveliness of Christianity, when it is rightly understood; and you are sure there is nothing to be desired in comparison of it. Secondly. You know the Scripture promises this, and says, it is attained by faith, and by no other way. Thirdly. You see clearly how desirable Christian faith is, even on account of its own intrinsic value. Fourthly. You are a witness, that the holiness and happiness above described can be attained no other way.

You are a witness, that the holiness and happiness above described can be attained no other way. The more you have laboured after virtue and happiness, the more convinced you are of this. Thus far then you need not lean upon other men; thus far you have personal experience. Fifthly. What reasonable assurance can you have of things whereof you have not personal experience? Suppose the question were, Can the blind be restored to sight? This you have not yourself experienced. How then will you know that such a thing ever was? Can there be an easier or surer way than to talk with one or some number of men who were blind, but are now restored to sight? They cannot be deceived as to the fact in question; the nature of the thing leaves no room for this. And if they are honest men, (which you may learn from other circumstances,) they will not deceive you. Now, transfer this to the case before us: And those who were blind, but now see, -those who were sick many years, but now are healed,--those who were miserable, but now are happy, -will afford you also a very strong evidence of the truth of Christianity; as strong as can be in the nature of things, till you experience it in your own soul: And this, though it be allowed they are but plain men, and, in general, of weak understanding; nay, though some of them should be mistaken in other points, and hold opinions which cannot be defended. 11. All this may be allowed concerning the primitive Fathers', I mean particularly Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian; to whom I would add Macarius and Ephraim Syrus. I allow that some of these had not strong natural sense, that few of them had much learning, and none the assistances which our age enjoys in some respects above all that went before. Hence I doubt not but whoever will be at the pains of reading over their writings for that poor end, will find many mistakes, many weak suppositions, and many ill-drawn conclusions. 12. And yet I exceedingly reverence them, as well as their writings, and esteem them very highly in love. I reverence them, because they were Christians, such Christians as are above described.

I reverence them, because they were Christians, such Christians as are above described. And I reverence their writings, because they describe true, genuine Christianity, and direct us to the strongest evidence of the Christian doctrine. Indeed, in addressing the Heathens of those times, they intermix other arguments; particularly, that drawn from the numerous miracles which were then performed in the Church; which they needed only to open their eyes and see daily wrought in the face of the sun. But still they never relinquish this: “What the Scripture promises, I enjoy. Come and see what Christianity has done here; and acknowledge it is of God.” I reverence these ancient Christians (with all their failings) the more, because I see so few Christians now; because I read so little in the writings of later times, and hear so little, of genuine Christianity; and because most of the modern Christians, (so called,) not content with being wholly ignorant of it, are deeply prejudiced against it, calling it enthusiasm, and I know not what. That the God of power and love may make both them, and you, and me, such Christians as those Fathers were, is the earnest prayer of, Reverend Sir, Your real friend and servant. January 24, 1748-9.

A Disavowal of Persecuting Papists Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- I HAvE read a Tract lately sent me, and will now give my free thoughts upon the subject. I set out early in life with an utter abhorrence of persecu tion in every form, and a full conviction that every man has a right to worship God according to his own conscience. Accordingly, more than fifty years ago, I preached on those words, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of: For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And I preached on the same text, in London, the 5th of last November. And this I extend to members of the Church of Rome, as well as to all other men. I agree not only that many of these in former ages were good men, (as Thomas à Kempis, Francis Sales, and the Mar quis de Renty,) but that many of them are so at this day. I believe, I know some Roman Catholics who sincerely love both God and their neighbour, and who steadily endeavour to do unto every one as they wish him to do unto them. But I cannot say this is a general case; nay, I am fully convinced it is not. The generality of Roman Catholics, wherever I have been, are of the same principles, and the same spirit, with their forefathers. And, indeed, if they had the same principles, it could not be doubted but they would be of the same practice too, if opportunity should serve. These principles openly avowed by their forefathers of priestly absolution, Papal indulgences, and no faith to be kept with heretics, have never been openly and authoritatively disavowed even unto this day. And until they are, a Roman Catholic, consistent with his principles, cannot be trusted by a Protestant. For the same principles naturally tend to produce the same spirit and the same practice. Very lately, a person seeing many flocking to a place, which she did not know was a Romish chapel, innocently said, “What do all these people want?” and was answered by one of them, with great vehe mence, “We want your blood.

A Letter to a Person Lately Joined with the Quakers Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- YoU ask me, “Is there any difference between Quakerism and Christianity?” I think there is. What that difference is, I will tell you as plainly as I can. I will, First, set down the account of Quakerism, so called, which is given by Robert Barclay; and, Then, add wherein it agrees with, and wherein it differs from, Christianity. “1. Seeing the height of all happiness is placed in the true knowledge of God, the right understanding of this is what is most necessary to be known in the first place. “2. It is by the Spirit alone that the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be, revealed. And these revela tions, which are absolutely necessary for the building up of true faith, neither do, nor can, ever contradict right reason or the testimony of the Scriptures.” Thus far there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. “Yet these revelations are not to be subjected to the examination of the Scriptures as to a touchstone.” Here there is a difference. The Scriptures are the touch stone whereby Christians examine all, real or supposed, revelations. In all cases they appeal “to the law and to the testimony,” and try every spirit thereby. “3. From these revelations of the Spirit of God to the saints, have proceeded the Scriptures of truth.” In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. “Yet the Scriptures are not the principal ground of all truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners. Nevertheless, they are a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit. By Him the saints are led into all truth. Therefore the Spirit is the first and principal leader.” If by these words, “The Scriptures are not the principal ground of truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners,” be only meant, that “the Spirit is our first and principal leader;” here is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. But there is great impropriety of expression. For though the Spirit is our principal leader, yet He is not our rule at all; the Scriptures are the rule whereby he leads us into all truth.

Again: The Apostle Paul saith to Timothy, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,” (which public teaching necessarily implies,) “but to be in silence.” (1 Tim. ii. 11, 12.) To this Robert Barclay makes only that harmless reply: “We think this is not anyways repugnant to this doctrine.” Not repugnant to this, “I do suffer a woman to teach !” Then I know not what is. “But a woman “laboured with Paul in the work of the gospel.’” Yea, but not in the way he had himself expressly forbidden. “But Joel foretold, ‘Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.’ And ‘Philip had four daughters which prophe sied.’ And the Apostle himself directs women to prophesy; only with their heads covered.” Very good. But how do you prove that prophesying in any of these places means preaching? “11. All true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of his own Spirit. We ought not to pray or preach where and when we will, but where and when we are moved thereto by his Spirit. All other worship, both praises, prayers, and preachings, which man sets about in his own will, and at his own appointment, which he can begin and end at pleasure, do or leave undone, as himself sees meet, are but superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatries.” Here lies one of the main differences between Quakerism and Christianity. It is true indeed, that “all true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of his own Spirit;” or, (to speak plain,) that we cannot truly worship God, unless his Spirit move or incline our hearts. It is equally true, that “we ought to pray and preach, only where and when we are moved thereto by his Spirit; ” but I fear you do not in anywise understand what the being “moved by his Spirit” means. God moves man, whom he has made a reasonable creature, according to the reason which he has given him. He moves him by his understanding, as well as his affections; by light, as well as by heat. He moves him to do this or that by conviction, full as often as by desire.

When you take it for granted, “In all preachings which a man begins or ends at his pleasure, does or leaves undone as he sees meet, he is not moved by the Spirit of God,” you are too hasty a great deal. It may be by the Spirit, that he sees meet to do or leave it undone. How will you prove that it is not? His pleasure may depend on the pleasure of God, signified to him by his Spirit. His appointing this or that time or place does in nowise prove the contrary. Prove me that proposition, if you can: “Every man who preaches or prays at an appointed time, preaches or prays in his own will, and not by the Spirit.” That “all such preaching is will-worship, in the sense St. Paul uses the word,” is no more true than that it is murder. That it is superstition, remains also to be proved. That it is abominable idolatry, how will you reconcile with what follows but a few lines after? “However, it might please God, who winked at the times of ignorance, to raise some breathings and answer them.” What! answer the breathings of abomi nable idolatry ! I observe how warily this is worded; but it allows enough. If God ever raised and answered those prayers which were made at set times, then those prayers could not be abominable idolatry. Again: That prayers and preachings, though made at appointed times, may yet proceed from the Spirit of God, may be clearly proved from those other words of Robert Barclay himself, page 389:-- “That preaching or prayer which is not done by the actings and movings of God’s Spirit cannot beget faith.” Most true. But preaching and prayer at appointed times have begotten faith both at Bristol and Paulton. You know it well. There fore that preaching and prayer, though at appointed times, was “done by the actings and movings of God’s Spirit.” It follows, that this preaching and prayer were far from “abominable idolatry.” That expression can never be defended. Say, It was a rash word, and give it up. In truth, from the beginning to the end, you set this matter upon a wrong foundation. It is not on this circumstance,-- the being at set times or not, that the acceptableness of our prayers depends; but on the intention and tempers with which we pray.

Their situation in the national Church would be very uncomfortable, as well as extremely ridiculous. For many enemies would soon be awakened against them, to distress and misrepresent them in various respects.” (Page 465.) Thus much as a specimen of your veracity. I object, Secondly, that you know not what faith is. You talk about it, and about it, and labour and sweat, and at last come to a most lame and impotent conclusion. You say, “That Christ died for me, is a point not easily settled, a point which the Scripture nowhere ascertains:” (The very thought, and nearly the words, of Cardinal Bellar mine, in his dispute with our forefathers:) “So far from it, that it affirms the final perdition of many who have great confidence of their interest in Christ;” (this only proves, that many fancy they have what they have not; which I suppose nobody will deny;) “yea, and declares, that “wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction.” (Page 14.) It is so; but this is nothing to the point,-the nature of true faith. *But Palaemon ought to possess a good memory.-EDIT. “Nature, these men say, begins the work;” (I know none of them who say so;) “and then grace helps out the efforts of nature, and persuades a man, though he be not mentioned in Scripture, either by name or surname, that Christ died for him.” (Page 33.) “So the Spirit whispers something to the heart of a sinner, beside what he publicly speaks in the Scriptures. But will any lover of the Scriptures allow the possibility of this,--that the Spirit should ever speak a syllable to any man, beside what he publicly speaks there?” (Page 35.) You will presently allow something wonderfully like it. And you suppose yourself to be a “lover of the Scriptures.” “Some of the Martyrs were assured of being the friends of Christ.” (Page 398.) How? Which way? Neither their name nor surname was mentioned in Scripture ! Why, “the Holy Ghost assured their hearts and the hearts of the first Christians, that their joy was not the joy of the hypocrite, but the beginning of eternal life. Thus their joy was made full, and their love perfected by the highest enjoyments it was here capable of Every believer finds a refreshment to his mind, far superior to all the comforts of this life.

Some Remarks on A Defence of the Preface to Aspasio Vindicated Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Year: 1766 Author: John Wesley --- I HAVE neither time nor inclination to write a formal answer to the Reverend Dr. Erskine's tract. My hope of convincing him is lost; he has drunk in all the spirit of the book he has published. But I owe it to God and his children to say something for myself, when I am attacked in so violent a manner, if haply some may take knowledge, that I also endeavour to “live honestly, and to serve God.” 1. Dr. Erskine says, “An edition of these Letters has been published in London, from the author's own manuscripts, which puts the authenticity of them beyond doubt.” I answer, This is a mistake; impartial men doubt of their authenticity as much as ever. (I mean, not with regard to the Letters in general, but to many particular passages.) And that for two reasons: First, because those passages breathe an acrimony and bitterness which Mr. Hervey in his life-time never showed to any one, and least of all to one he was deeply obliged to. Surely this is not what Dr. E. terms his “scriptural and animated manner.” I hope it was not for this cause that he pronounces this “equal, if not superior, to any one of his controversial pieces published in his life-time.” Indeed, I know of no controversial piece at all which he published in his life-time. His “Dialogues” he no more intended for such, than his “Meditations among the Tombs.” A Second reason for doubting of their authenticity is, that he told his brother, with his dying voice, (I have it under his brother’s own hand,) “I desire my Letters may not be published; because great part of them is written in a short hand which none but myself can read.” 2. But the present question lies, not between me and Mr. Hervey, but between Dr. E. and me.

I must not let it pass quite unnoticed. (1.) He “justly censures the enthu siasm and credulity of Mr. Wesley in paying so much atten tion to Bell’s ridiculous reveries.” Nay, so very little, that I checked them strongly, as soon as ever they came to my know ledge; particularly his whim about the end of the world, which I earnestly opposed, both in private and public. (2) “Bragging of the many miraculous cures he had wrought.” I bragged of--that is, simply related, the case of Mary Special, and no other; in the close of which I said, “Here are three plain facts,--She was ill; she is well; she became so in a moment. Which of these can with any modesty be denied?” I still ask the same question. (3.) That I ever called him “a sensible man,” is altogether false. A man of faith and love I then knew him to be; but I never thought him a man of sense. (4.) That I “entreated him to continue in the society,” is likewise totally false. (5.) Nor did I ever tell him, on that or any other occasion, of “the great good” he did. I know he was an instrument in God’s hands of convincing and converting many sinners. But though I speak this now to all the world, I never spoke it to himself. (6.) Neither did he ever refuse, what never was asked, “to remain in connexion with me.” (7.) Least of all did he refuse it because of my “double-dealings or unfaithful proceedings.” He never mentioned to me any such thing, nor had he any pretence so to do. (8.) Nay, but you “was at some times full of Bell's praises.” Very moderately full. “At other times,” that is, after he ran mad, “you warned the people against him.” I warned them not to regard his prophecies, particularly with regard to the 28th of February. (Journal, Vol. III., p. 130.) 20. “He also gives us a particular narration of what he rightly calls the comet-enthusiasm. Mr. John preached more than ten times about the comet he supposed was to appear in 1758, and to consume the globe.” This is a foolish slander, as it is so easily confuted.

So, although you have got the gallows ready, you have not turned off old Mordecai yet. As you so frequently give me that appellation, I for once accept of your favour. 48. “Before I quit this subject,” (of perfection,) “I cannot help expressing my astonishment, that Mr. Wesley should deny that his tenets on that point exactly harmonize with those of the Popish Church; since all the decrees and books that have been published by the Roman Clergy prove this matter beyond a doubt.” I believe you have been told so. But you should not assert it, unless from personal knowledge. “Alexander Ross says so.” What is Alexander Ross? See with your own eyes. “Mr. Hervey too gives an account of Lindenus and Andradius.” Second-hand evidence still. Have you seen them yourself? Otherwise, you ought not to allow their testimony. As to that “most excellent and evangelical work,” as you term it, the Eleven Letters ascribed to Mr. Hervey, Mr. Sellon has abundantly shown, that they are most excellently virulent, scurrilous, and abusive; and full as far from the evangelical spirit, as the Koran of Mahomet. “But Bishop Cowper”--I object to him, beside his being a hot, bitter Calvinist, that he is a dull, heavy, shallow writer. And let him be what he may, all you cite from him is but second-hand authority. “Nay, I refer to the Bishop's own words.” But still, you have only the words at second-hand. In order to know the tenets of the Church of Rome, you must read the Romish authors themselves. Nay, it does not suffice to read their own private authors. They will disown anything we charge them with, unless we can prove it by recurring to their public and authentic records. Such are the “Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini.” Such the “Catechismus ad Parochos.” Till you have read these at least, you should never undertake to determine what is, or what is not, Popery. 49. “But as I am now on the subject of Popery, I must make a few animadversions on what Mr. Wesley affirms, ‘I always thought the tenets of the Church of Rome were nearer by half to Mr. Hill's tenets, than to Mr. Wesley’s.” (Page 33.) Nay, give the honour of this to its true author: Mr.

Wesley’s.” (Page 33.) Nay, give the honour of this to its true author: Mr. Hill goes to consult a Popish Friar at Paris, a Benedictine Monk, one Father Walsh, concerning the Minutes of the Conference. Father Walsh (Mr. Hill says; and I see no reason to scruple his authority here) assures him that the Minutes contain false doctrine; and that the tenets of the Church of Rome are nearer by half to his (Mr. Hill's) tenets than they are to Mr. Wesley's. (So Mr. Hill himself informs the world, in the Paris Conversation, of famous memory, which I really think he would never have published, unless, as the vulgar say, the devil had owed him a shame.) I add, “Truly, I always thought so.” But I am the more confirmed therein, by the authority of so competent a judge; especially when his judg ment is publicly delivered by so unexceptionable a witness. 50. Nay, but “you know, the principles of the Pope and of John Calvin are quite opposite to each other.” I do not know that they are opposite at all in this point. Many Popes have been either Dominicans or Benedictines: And many of the Benedictines, with all the Dominicans, are as firm Predestinarians as Calvin himself. Whether the present Pope is a Dominican, I cannot tell: If he is, he is far nearer your tenets than mine. Let us make the trial with regard to your ten propositions:-- (1) “You deny election.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” I know not that. Probably he holds it. (2.) “You deny persever- “So does the Pope of ance.” Rome.” That is much to be doubted. (3) “You deny imputed righteousness.” Perhaps the Pope of Rome does; but I assert it continu ally. (4) “You hold free-will.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” No; not as I do ; (unless he is a Predestina rian: Otherwise,) he ascribes it to nature, I to grace. (5) “You hold that works If you mean good works, I are a condition of justifica do not. tion.” (6) “You hold a twofold justification; one now, another at the last day.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” And so do all Pro testants, if they believe the Bible. (7) “You hold the doctrine I do not. Neither does the of merit.” Pope, if Father Walsh says true.

H. styles them; which he particularly “admires,” (that is his word,) and the “whole spirit” of which he has drank in. This is his peculiar character, his distinguishing grace: As a writer, his name is Wormwood. Accordingly, he charges Mr. F. with a “severe, acrimonious spirit,” with “sneer, sarcasm, and banter,” yea, with “notorious falsehoods, calumny, and gross perversions.” (Page 2.) Nay, “I accuse you,” says he, “of the grossest perversions and misrepresenta tions that ever proceeded from any author's pen.” In the same spirit he is represented as “a slanderer of God’s people and Ministers, descending to the meanest quibbles, with a bitter, railing, acrimonious spirit;” (page 21;) and, page 27, to go no farther, as “using stratagem and ungenerous artifices:” Although “I have treated you,” says Mr. H., “with all the politeness of a gentleman, and the humility of a Christian.” Amazing! And has he not treated me so too? At present, take but one or two instances: “Forgeries have long passed for no crime with Mr. Wesley.” (Page 27.) “He administers falsehoods and damnable heresies, rank poison, hemlock, and ratsbane. We cannot allow him any other title than that of an empiric or quack-doctor.” (Page 29.) Which shall we admire most here,--the gentleman or the Christian? 4. There is something extremely odd in this whole affair. A man falls upon another, and gives him a good beating; who, in order to be revenged, does not grapple with him, (perhaps sensible that he is above his match,) but, giving him two or three kicks, falls upon a third man that was standing by. “O,” says he, “but I know that fellow well; he is the second of him that beat me.”--“If he is, dispatch your business with the former first, and then turn to him.” However, if Mr. H. is resolved to fall upon me, I must defend myself as well as I can. 5. From the spirit and manner wherein he writes, let us now proceed to the matter. But that is so various, and scattered up and down for an hundred and fifty pages, without much order or connexion, that it is difficult to know where to begin. However, all tends to one point; the good design of the writer is, to blacken.

Bernard or Ambrose, we must consult the authors themselves, and tell our readers what edition we use, with the page where the words are found; otherwise they cannot form a judgment either of the fairness of the quota tion, or of the sense and weight of it. Hitherto, then, we have not one tittle of proof, that this is a Popish doctrine; that it ever was, or is now, “almost generally received in the Church of Rome;” (although, if it had, this would be no conclusive argument against it, as neither is it conclusive against the doctrine of the blessed Trinity;) I do not know that it ever was: But this I know; it has been solemnly condemned by the Church of Rome. It has been condemned by the Pope and his whole conclave, even in this present century. In the famous bull Unigenitus, (so called from the first words, Unigenitus Dei filius,') they utterly condemn the uninterrupted act (of faith and love, which some then talked of, of continually rejoicing, praying, and giving thanks) as dreadful heresy Now, in what public act of the Church of Rome is the doctrine of perfection maintained? Till this is produced, I pray let us hear no more, that perfection is a Popish doctrine. 25. However, “the distinction between sins and innocent infirmities is derived from the Romish Church.” (Page 56.) How does this appear? Thus: “Two of her devoted cham pions, Lindenus and Andradius, distinguish between infirmi ties and sins.” Lindenus and Andradius / Who are they? From what country did they come? I do not know the men. One of them, for aught I know, might serve as an interpreter at the Council of Trent? What then? Was he an autho rized interpreter of the doctrines of the Church? Nay, and how do you know that they did speak of “little, trifling faults,” or of “minute and trivial sins?” Did you ever read them? Pray, what edition of their works do you use? and in what page do these words occur? Till we know this, that there may be an opportunity of examining the books, (though I fear scarce worth examining,) it is doing too much honour to such quotations, to take any notice of them at all. 26. Well, now for the buskins !

Well, now for the buskins ! Now, spirat tragicum satis '+ “And this is the doctrine which is preached to more than thirty thousand souls, of which Mr. W. has the charge. Then I am sure it is high time, that not only the Calvinist Ministers, but all that wish well to the interest of Protestantism,” (so Mr. S. said before,) “should, in a body, protest against such licentious tenets.” “Blow ye the trumpet in Sion l’” Gird on your armour ! Make ye your selves ready for battle ! Again the trumpet sounds:--A * The only-begotten Son of God.-ED 1 T. + This quotation from Horace is thus translated by Francis : “It breathes the spirit of the tragic scene.”--ED1T. crusadel An holy war! Down with the heretics! But hold ! What spirit are you of ? Are you followers of peace? Then “bring forth your strong reasons; speak the truth in love,” and we are ready to meet you. But really all this talk of my licentious doctrine is a mere copy of Mr. H.’s countenance. He knows, and all in England know, (whoever have heard my name,) that it is not too loose, but too strict, doctrine I am constantly accused of. Therefore, all this bluster, about my superseding the law, has not only no truth, but no colour, no plausibility. And when Mr. H. calls so gravely for Dr. Crisp to “sweep away all my Antinomian rubbish,” shall we laugh or weep? Cuivis facilis rigidi censura cachinni.* Rather let us drop a tear on human infirmity. 27. So much for the First grand argument against perfec tion, that it is “generally received in the Church of Rome.” The Second is: “It was generally received among the ranting Anabaptists in Germany.” (Page 49.) What author of note testifies this? I allow no second-hand authority; but desire to know what German historian of credit has recorded it; and in what page of his works. When this is ascertained, then we may observe, it proves just nothing. A Third argument against perfection is, that “it was main tained by many wild Ranters in London.” Wild enough ! although no stress is to be laid on Mr. H.’s informations concerning them; some of which are altogether false, and the rest imperfect enough. But suppose they were all true, what would follow?

It may be doubted whether God ever made an intelligent creature without all these three faculties; whether any spirit ever existed without them; yea, whether they are not implied in the very nature of a spirit. Certain it is, that no being can be accountable for its actions, which has not liberty, as well as will and understanding. How admirably is this painted by Milton, supposing God to speak concerning his new-made creature l-- “I made him just and right, Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall. Such I created all the ethereal powers, - Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell. Not free, what proof could they have given sincere Of true allegiance, constant faith and love, Where only what they needs must do appear'd, Not what they would P What praise could they receive, What pleasure I, from such obedience paid, When will and reason, (reason also is choice.) Useless and vain, of freedom both despoil'd, Made passive both, had served necessity, Not me * They therefore, as to right belong’d, So were created So without least impulse or shadow of fate, Or aught by me immutably foreseen, They trespass, authors to themselves in all Both what they judge and what they choose: For so I form'd them free; and free they must remain, Till they enthral themselves. I else must change Their nature, and reverse the high decree, Unchangeable, eternal, which ordain'd Their freedom; they themselves ordain'd their fall.” Paradise Lost, Book III. 9. It seems, they who divide the faculties of the human soul into the understanding, will, and affections, unless they make the will and affections the same thing; (and then how inaccurate is the division 1) must mean by affections, the will, properly speaking, and by the term will, neither more nor less than liberty; the power of choosing either to do or not to do, (commonly called liberty of contradiction,) or to do this or the contrary, good or evil (commonly called liberty of con trariety). Without the former at least, there can be nothing good or evil, rewardable or punishable.

An Address to the Clergy Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- BRETHREN AND FATHERs, LET it not be imputed to forwardness, vanity, or pre sumption, that one who is of little esteem in the Church takes upon him thus to address a body of people, to many of whom he owes the highest reverence. I owe a still higher regard to Him who I believe requires this at my hands; to the great Bishop of our souls; before whom both you and I must shortly give an account of our stewardship. It is a debt I owe to love, to real, disinterested affection, to declare what has long been the burden of my soul. And may the God of love enable you to read these lines in the same spirit wherewith they were wrote It will easily appear to an unprejudiced reader, that I do not speak from a spirit of anger or resentment. I know well, “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” Much less would I utter one word out of contempt; a spirit justly abhor red by God and man. Neither of these can consist with that earnest, tender love, which is the motive of my present undertaking. In this spirit I desire to cast my bread upon the waters; it is enough if I find it again after many days. Meantime, you are sensible, love does not forbid, but rather require, plainness of speech. Has it not often constrained you, as well as me, to lay aside, not only disguise, but reserve also; and “by manifestation of the truth to commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God?” And while I endeavour to do this, let me earnestly entreat you, for the love of God, for the love of your own soul, for the love of the souls committed to your charge, yea, and of the whole Church of Christ, do not bias your mind, by thinking who it is that speaks; but impartially consider what is spoken. And if it be false or foolish, reject it; but do not reject “the words of truth and soberness.” My first design was, to offer a few plain thoughts to the Clergy of our own Church only.

Free Thoughts on the Present State of Public Affairs Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- YoU desire me to give you my thoughts freely on the present state of public affairs. But do you consider? I am no politician; politics lie quite out of my province. Neither have I any acquaintance, at least no intimacy, with any that bear that character. And it is no easy matter to form any judgment concerning things of so complicated a nature. It is the more difficult, because, in order to form our judgment, such a multitude of facts should be known, few of which can be known with tolerable exactness by any but those who are eye-witnesses of them. And how few of these will relate what they have seen precisely as it was, without adding, omitting, or altering any circumstance, either with or with out design And may not a slight addition or alteration give a quite different colour to the whole? And as we cannot easily know, with any accuracy, the facts on which we are chiefly to form our judgment; so, much less can we expect to know the various springs of action which gave rise to those facts, and on which, more than on the bare actions themselves, the characters of the actors depend. It is on this account that an old writer advises us to judge * Thus translated by Francis : “You treat adventurous, and incautious tread On fires with faithless embers overspread.”--EDIT. nothing before the time; to abstain, as far as possible, from judging peremptorily, either of things or persons, till thc time comes, when “the hidden things of darkness,” the facts now concealed, “will be brought to light,” and the hidden springs of action will be discovered,--“the thoughts and intents of" every human “heart.” Perhaps you will say, “Nay, every Englishman is a politi cian; we suck in politics with our mother's milk. It is as natural for us to talk politics as to breathe; we can instruct both the King and his Council.

Not to have pardoned him in this case would have been inexcusable before God and man. “But what can be said in excuse of his being governed by his mother, and fixing all his measures at Carlton-House?” It may be said, that if it was so, it is past, and so is no matter of present complaint. But who informed you that it was ? any eye and ear witness? “O, it is in every body's mouth.” Very well; but every body is nobody; so this proof is no proof at all. And what better proof have you, or any man, of his fixing any of his measures there? This has been affirmed an hundred times, but never was proved yet. “Nay, but is it not undeniable fact, that he spent hour after hour with her; and especially when he was hard pressed, and knew not which way to turn?” And what then ? Who loves him better than his parent? And whom has he a right to love better than her? Who is more faithful to him, more steadily desirous of his welfare? And whom can he trust better? Suppose then it was true, (which is more than any man can prove,) that he did consult her on all occasions, and particularly when he was in trouble and perplexity, who can blame him for so doing? “Well, be this as it may, who can help blaming him for giving so many pensions?” This is a thing which I do not understand, and can therefore neither praise nor blame. Some indeed, I think, are well bestowed on men eminent in their several professions. All, I believe, are well designed, particularly those given to men who are removed from public employments. Yet, I fear, some of these are ill bestowed on those who not only fly in the face of their benefactor, but avail themselves of his favours to wound the deeper. “For were he not in the wrong, these would never turn against him!” What pity they should enjoy them another day, after such foul and flagrant ingratitude I This fault (if it were really such) would argue too great easiness of temper. But this is quite the reverse of what is commonly objected,--inflexible stubbornness.

I shall not deny to Mr. Grenville the merit of bringing in a bill for remedying this grievance; but its passing as it did is a certain proof that the pretended influence of admi mistration over a majority of the House is a mere bugbear, held forth for private views by the present opposition. “During the whole session, the House of Lords behaved with that dignity and unalterable firmness which became the first assembly in a great nation. Attacked with impertinent scurrility, they smiled upon rage, and treated the ravings of a despotic tribune with contempt. When, with an infamous perversion of his pretended love to freedom, he attempted to extend the control of the Peers to the resolutions of the representatives of the people, they nobly rejected the golden bait; and scorned to raise the dignity of their House upon the ruins of the other. They, in short, throughout the session, showed a spirit that disdained to be braved, a magnanimity that diminished their own personal power for the ease and comfort of the inferior subject. “If the conduct of Parliament is in any instance blamable, it is in a lenity that is inconsistent with the vulgar idea of political courage. They have been attacked with scurrility in the Lower House; in the Upper, they have been treated with indecency and disrespect. Their prudence and love for the public peace prevailed over their resentment. They knew that legal punishment is in these times the road to popularity; and they were unwilling to raise insignificant men into a consequence that might disturb the State.” So far we have gained. We have removed the imaginary causes of the present commotions. It plainly appears, they are not owing to the extraordinary badness, either of the King, of his Parliament, of his Ministers, or of the measures which they have taken. To what then are they owing? What are the real causes of this amazing ferment among the people? Before I say anything on this subject, let me remind you: once more, that I do not dictate; I do not take upon me to: affirm anything, but simply tell you what I think. I think, the first and principal spring of the whole motion is French. gold.

I say, show me the men, only this small number; or rather, show them to His Majesty. Let clear and satisfactory proof be given that this is their character; and if these worthy men are not employed in the place of the unworthy ones, you will then have some reason to stretch your throat against evil Ministers. “But if the matter were wholly left to him, would not Lord immediately employ twenty such?” That may bear some doubt. It is not certain that he would; perhaps he knows not where to find them. And it is not certain to a demonstration, that he would employ them if he did. It is not altogether clear, that he is such himself, that he perfectly answers this character. Is he free from pride; from anything haughty in his temper, or overbearing in his behaviour? Is he neither passionate nor revengeful? Is it indisputably plain, that he is equally clear of covetousness on the one hand, and profuseness on the other? Is he steady and uniform in his conduct; always one thing? Is he attached to no party, but determined at all events singly to pursue the general good of the nation? Is he a lover of the King? Is he remarkably grateful to him, from whom he has received no common favours? If not, though he has a strong under standing, and a large share of manly eloquence, still it may be doubted, whether he and his friends would behave a jot better than the Ministers we have already. And suppose the King were to dissolve the Parliament, what hope is there of having a better, even though the nation were as quiet and peaceable as it was ten years ago? Are not the pre sent members, generally speaking, men of the greatest property in the land? And are they not, the greater part of them at least, as honest and wise as their neighbours? How then should we mend ourselves at any time; but especially at such a time as this? If a new Parliament were chose during this epidemic madness, what probability of a better than the present? Have we not all the reason in the world to apprehend it would be a much worse? that it would be the Parliament of 1641, instead of the Parliament of 1640?

will first despise and then abhor the King? What can we expect, but that by the repeated doses of this poison they will be perfectly intoxicated, and only wait for a con venient season to tear in pieces the royal monster, as they think him, and all his adherents? 25. At present there are hinderances in the way, so that they cannot use their teeth as they would. One is an untoward Parliament, who will not look upon the King with the same eyes that they do; but still think he has no more design or desire to enslave the nation, than to burn the city of London. A still greater hinderance is the army; even lions and bears do not choose to encounter them, so that these men of war do really at this time preserve the peace of ithe nation. What then can be done before the people cools, that this precious opportunity be not lost? What indeed, but to prevail upon the King to dissolve his Parliament and disband his army? Nay, let the Parliament stay as it is, it will suffice to disband the army. If these red-coats were but out of the way, the mob would soon deal with the Parliament. Probatum est: * Nothing is more easy than to keep malignant members from the House. Remember Lord North not long ago;t this was a taste, a specimen, of their activity. What then would they not do if they were masters of the field, if none were left to oppose them? Would not the * This has already been put to the proof-EDIT. + Rudely insulted by a turbulent mob, as he was going into the House. Titou GHTS UPON LIBERTY. 45. avenues of both Houses be so well guarded, that none but patriots would dare to approach? 26. But (as often as you have heard the contrary affirmed) King George has too much understanding, to throw himself into the hands of those men who have given full proof that they bear him no great good-will. Nor has he reason to believe that they are much more fond of his office than of his person. They are not vehemently fond of monarchy itself, whoever the Monarch be. Therefore neither their good nor ill words will induce him, in haste, to leap into the fire with his eyes open. 27.

By one stroke, by taking to himself that Prince whom we know not how to value, He might change the scene, and put an end to our civil as well as religious liberty. Then would be seen who were patriots and who were not; who were real lovers of liberty and their country. The God of love remove that day far from us! Deal not with us according to our deservings; but let us know, at least in this our day, the things which make for our peace! February 24, 1772.

Have you not full liberty, with regard to your life, to your person, and to your goods? In what other country upon earth is such civil liberty to be found? If you are not thankful to God and the King for these blessings, you are utterly unworthy of them. Is it prudence to speak in so bitter and contemptuous a manner of such Governors as God has given you? What, if by the bitterness of your spirit, the acrimony of your language, and the inflammatory libels which you spread abroad, you could carry your point, unhinge the present Government, and set up another in its stead what would you gain thereby? Would another Government allow you more liberty than you now enjoy? Could they give you a more unbounded liberty of conscience? It is impossible ! Would they give you a larger measure of civil liberty? They could not if they would. And certainly they would not give you the liberty of railing at your Governors, and stirring up your fellow-subjects against them. If you did this, you * But many of them are of a better mind. would not only lose your goods, but probably your life also. On the other hand, what if the present Government should continue in spite of all your disloyal practices! have you any assurance, have you any reason to believe, that our Governors will always be so patient? Nay, undoubtedly, when things of greater moment are settled, they will find a time for you. Your present behaviour will then be remembered; perhaps not altogether to your advantage. It is not the ignorance but the wisdom of your Governors which occasions their present silence. And if you go on thus, be assured, sooner or later, you will meet with your reward. There is no need that the King should do anything: He needs only not to restrain; that is enough: There are those on every side who are now ready to swallow you up. You will then wish you had been wise in time, when your wisdom comes too late; when the King of kings “laughs at your calamity, and mocks while your fear cometh.”

48. See an argument of a different kind: “The laws and religion of France were established in Canada, on purpose to bring up thence an army of French Papists.” (Page 94.) What proof have you, what tittle or shadow of proof, for this strange assertion, that the laws and religion which they had before in Canada were established on purpose to bring an army thence? It is manifest to every impartial man, that this was done for a nobler purpose. Every nation, you allow, has a natural liberty to enjoy their own laws, and their own religions: So have the French in Canada; and we have no right to deprive them of this liberty. Our Parliament never desired, never intended, to deprive them of this; (so far were they from any intention of depriving their own countrymen of it!) and on purpose to deliver them from any apprehension of so grievous an evil, they generously and nobly gave them a legal security, that it should not be taken from them. And is this (one of the best things our Parliament ever did) improved into an accusation against them? “But our laws and religion are better than theirs.” Unquestionably they are; but this gives us no right to impose the one or the other, even on a conquered nation. What if we had conquered France, ought we not still to have allowed them their own laws and religion? Yea, if the Russians had conquered Constantinople, or the whole Ottoman empire, ought they not to have allowed to all they conquered, both their own religion and their own laws; nay, and to have given them, not a precarious toleration, but a legal security for both? 49. “But the wild Indians, and their own slaves, have been instigated to attack them.” I doubt the fact. What proof is there of this, either with regard to the Indians or the Negroes? “And attempts have been made to gain the assistance of a large body of Russians.” Another hearty assertion, which many will swallow, without ever asking for proof: In truth, had any such attempts been made, they would not have proved ineffectual. Very small pay will induce a body of Russians to go wherever they hope for good plunder. It might just as well have been said, “Attempts were made to procure a large body of Tartars.” 50.

It might just as well have been said, “Attempts were made to procure a large body of Tartars.” 50. Now for a little more encouragement to your good friends and allies in America: “The utmost force we can employ does not exceed thirty thousand men to conquer half a million of determined men, fighting for that sacred blessing of liberty, without which man is a beast, and government a curse.” (Page 95.) I am not sure that our utmost force is either thirty, or forty, or fifty, thousand men. But are you sure, that “half a million, at least, are determined to fight” against them? Yes: For “a quarter of the inhabitants of every country are fighting men; and the colonies consist of two millions.” Here are several points which are not quite clear. I doubt, (1.) Whether those colonies contain two millions. I doubt, (2.) Whether a quarter of the inhabitants of any country are fighting men: We usually reckon a sixth part. I doubt, (3.) Whether a quarter of the American fighting men, are determined to fight in so bad a cause; to fight, not for liberty, which they have long enjoyed, but for independency. Will you affirm, that “without this, man is a beast, and government a curse?” Then, show me where man is not a beast, and where government is not a curse. 51. But you give them more encouragement still: “In the Netherlands, a few states thus circumstanced withstood the whole force of the Spanish monarchy; and, at last, emancipated themselves from its tyranny.” (Ibid.) Thus circumstanced : No; they were in wholly different circumstances; they were cruelly and wantonly oppressed; they were robbed both of civil and religious liberty; they were slaughtered all the day long; and, during the contest, which was really for liberty, they were assisted by the German Princes, by England, and by France itself. But “what can thirty thousand men do, when they are to be fed from hence?” (Page 96.) Do you think they will stand with their finger in their eye? If they cannot find food at land, (which would be strange,) the seas and rivers are open. “Their maritime towns they are resolved to burn themselves.” They will think twice, before they execute that resolution. “As to their trade, the loss of it will do them unspeakable good.” Will it indeed? Then let them acknowledge their benefactors.

Ye salt of the earth, exert the seasoning, preserving quality which you are favoured with. Bring your contentious brethren in your loving arms of faith and prayer, and lay them at your Father's feet, praying him “to forgive them, as they know not what they do.” Look upwards for help, to Him “who doeth whatsoever pleases him in the armies of heaven, and amongst the sons of men;” knowing it is He alone that “can quench the violence of fire, still the raging of the sea, and the madness of the people.” Much, brethren, depends on you, though “the world account your life madness, and your end to be without honour;” for you are the true “salt of the carth;” you alone preserve it from general putrefaction; and you, under God, are the great means of saving a divided kingdom, “a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil doers;” and had not the Lord “left you as a small remnant,” we should long since “have been as Sodom and Gomorrah!” But do not you, for your Master’s sake, lose your favour in that unhallowed fire of contention, which the people who know not God are now burning in. The old serpent may herein deceive us, as he has too often done already. As an angel of light he is most likely to succeed, and, under the specious show of doing our country service, betray us, in treating our opponents, into a spirit and temper not from above. And how many may unhappily be influenced and led away with our error, God only knows | But this seems to be the design of the adversary of God and man; and if he can set the Christian world together by the ears, he has gained his point. But again, brethren, we may be deceived respecting the cause itself. Our veneration and respect for the cause we would espouse may betray us into a maze of error, imprudence, false zeal, and bitterness of temper; which must prove highly injurious to the public good. What has been, you know, may be again.

Again: Inquire, my friends, “In what respects and in what degree have any of our manufactures declined of late? Perhaps there is some decrease in a few branches, of weaving in particular. And this must be in the nature of things, while fashions are continually changing; so that a large demand for this or that commodity cannot be expected to continue long But is not this decrease in some branches amply compensated by the increase in others? Let it be more particularly inquired, Are the capital places less employed in manufactures, than they were in 1759? Are there fewer buildings now in use for the carrying on of great and extensive works? Are there fewer warehouses and magazines, and fewer machines and engines of every kind? How easily may you be convinced, that, in every one of these articles, far from a decrease, there is a very considerable increase, since the year 1759 | 4. “As to land and fresh-water carriage of goods, let any of you inquire, Are there fewer public waggons on the roads than there were formerly? And are there fewer roads fit for waggons to travel on? If so, our trade decreases. Are there fewer trows or barges employed on rivers and canals than there were heretofore? If there are, we allow the decrease of these is a sure sign of the decrease of trade. And, on the contrary, the vast increase of these proves a proportionable increase of it. ‘Are the rivers and canals fewer in these degenerate times than in the year 1759?’” See, my friends, by this plain, demonstrative proof, how sadly our trade is decreased ! And I cannot but observe, that arguments of this general kind are abundantly more conclusive than any which are or can be drawn from the case of particular persons. We always find a considerable number of these, both in London and elsewhere, who loudly complain of the decay of trade, and the hardness of the times. What does this mean? That “they themselves want business.” Perhaps they want industry too. But these particular cases are of no weight, opposed to those general considerations. 5. You may inquire next, with regard to “salt-water carriage of goods. Is the quantity of British shipping decreased since the year 1759? Are there fewer ships now employed in the coasting-trade? fewer in the Irish trade? or fewer for distant voyages?

or fewer for distant voyages? Nay, have we fewer ship-carpenters, or fewer sail makers at work? And do we build fewer or smaller ships for merchants’ service than formerly?” The more particu larly you inquire, the more clearly you will see how immensely the nation has improved in this article. But it is objected, “We have lost eight hundred of our ships since the beginning of the war.” Perhaps so; although you have no proof of this; for Lloyd's Catalogue is no sufficient evidence. But how many have we taken? This it is absolutely needful you should know, or you cannot know whether we have lost or gained upon the whole. We have taken above nine hundred. And the evidence of our gain is at least as good as that of our loss. “Nay, but we have also lost our Negro trade.” I would to God it may never be found more ! that we may never more steal and sell our brethren like beasts; never murder them by thousands and tens of thousands ! O may this worse than Mahometan, worse than Pagan, abomination, be removed from us for ever ! Never was anything such a reproach to England since it was a nation, as the having any hand in this execrable traffic. 6. “The state of our fisheries at home and abroad forms another important article of comparison. For as our ships of war are our bulwarks, and our sailors are the proper guards for defending such works, so it is of the utmost importance to have always ready, for manning our fleets, a number of able seamen. Now, these are most readily supplied by our fisheries. And when were these in their most flourishing state? in 1759, or 1777? Were more British ships employed in the fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, or in the gulf of St. Lawrence, or on the coasts of Labrador, then, than there are now 7 Were there half as many? Again: Were there more employed in the fisheries for whales, and fish to make oil? Were there even half as many? As to the fisheries on our own coasts, and on the coasts of Scotland and Ireland, can any man deny that they have hugely increased during these eighteen years?

7. “Yea, but Portugal too will declare against us.” I do not believe one word of it. The Portuguese (to say nothing about their gratitude) are not such arrant fools; they under stand their own interest better; they need no one to inform them, that if the English were only to stand neuter, the Spaniards would eat them up at a mouthful. They well know the present war will not last always; and, in the end, either England will prevail, or not. If it does not, if Spain prevail over England, England cannot defend Portugal. If England prevail over Spain, she will not. She will doubtless leave His Most Faithful Majesty to receive the reward he has so justly deserved from the fleet and army of his neighbour. 8. “But do not you know the French squadron is sailed to assist them, with four thousand soldiers on board?” I really do not, nor you neither; nor any man in Ireland. That they are sailed, I know; but not whether to Africa, or Asia, or America. But have they four thousand soldiers on board? And is that all? I heard they were twelve thousand. But in how many transports did they embark? We could not hear of one. Where then were the soldiers to be put? in the hold of the men-of-war, or on the shrouds? This story is not well devised; it manifestly confutes itself. But suppose twelve thousand are sailed, are they sure to land? Do they command the winds and seas? And, if they do, are they sure the English fleet will not speak with them by the way? If they escape these, are they sure of landing without opposi tion ? Is it certain that all our soldiers will stand meantime with their fingers in their mouth? How great then is the odds against the French ever joining the American army | Although, if they did, there is no doubt but General Howe would give a good account of them all. 9. “Why, to say the truth, we are not so much afraid of Portugal or Spain, yea, or of France itself, as we are of those intestine vipers, who are always ready to tear out their mother’s bowels. And how should we defend ourselves against these, if they made a general insurrection?” This is worth considering.

A Word in Season: Advice to an Englishman Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. Do you ever think? Do you ever consider? If not, it is high time you should. Think a little, before it is too late. Consider what a state you are in ; and not you alone, but our whole nation. We would have war; and we have it. And what is the fruit? Our armies broken in pieces; and thousands of our men either killed on the spot, or made prisoners in one day. Nor is this all. We have now war at our own doors; our own countrymen turning their swords against their brethren. And have any hitherto been able to stand before them? Have they not already seized upon one whole kingdom? Friend, either think now, or sleep on and take your rest, till you drop into the pit where you will sleep no more ! 2. Think what is likely to follow, if an army of French also should blow the trumpet in our land ' What desolation may we not then expect? what a wide-spread field of blood? And what can the end of these things be? If they prevail, what but Popery and slavery? Do you know what the spirit of Popery is? Did you never hear of that in Queen Mary’s reign; and of the holy men who were then burned alive by the Papists, because they did not dare to do as they did; to worship angels and saints, to pray to the Virgin Mary, to * This was published at the beginning of the late rebellion. bow down to images, and the like? If we had a King of this spirit, whose life would be safe? at least, what homest man’s? A knave indeed might turn with the times. But what a dreadful thing would this be to a man of conscience: “Either turn or burn: Either go into that fire, or into ‘the fire that never shall be quenched?’” 3. And can you dream that your property would be any safer than your conscience? Nay, how should that be? Nothing is plainer than that the Pretender cannot be King of England, unless it be by conquest. But every conqueror may do what he will; the laws of the land are no laws to him.

A Word to an Unhappy Woman Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. WHITHER are you going? to heaven or hell? Do you not know? Do you never think about it? Why do you not? Are you never to die? Nay, it is appointed for all men to die. And what comes after? Only heaven or heli. Will the not thinking of death, put it farther off? No; n t a day; not one hour. Or will your not thinking of hell, save you from it? O no; you know better. And you know that every moment you are nearer hell, whether you are thinking of it or no; that is, if you are not nearer heaven. You must be nearer one or the other. 2. I intreat you, think a little on that plain question, Are you going toward heaven or hell? To which of the two does this way lead? Is it possible you should be ignorant? Did you never hear, that neither adulterers nor fornicators shall inherit the kingdom ? that fornicators and adulterers. God will judge? And how dreadful will be their sentence, “Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels!” 3. Surely you do not mock at the word of God! You are not yet sunk so low as this. Consider then that awful word, “Know ye not, that ye are the temples of God?” Was not you designed for the Spirit of God to dwell in ? Was not you devoted to God in baptism? But “if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.” O do not provoke him to it any longer ! Tremble before the great, the holy God! 4. Know you not, that your body is, or ought to be, the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you? Know you not, that “you are not your own? for you are bought with a price.” And, O how great a price! “You are not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” O when will you glorify God, with your body and your spirit, which are God’s 5. Ah, poor wretch! How far are you from this?

O let it ever be to me a day sacred to divine love, a day of heavenly rest and refreshment. Let thy Holy Spirit, who, on the first day of the week, descended in miraculous gifts on thy Apostles, descend on me thy unworthy servant, that I may be always “in the spirit on the Lord's day.” Let his blessed inspiration prevent and assist me in all the duties of this thy sacred day, that my wandering thoughts may all be fixed on thee, my tumultuous affections composed, and my flat and cold desires quickened into fervent longings and thirstings after thee. O let me join in the prayers and praises of thy Church with ardent and heavenly affection, hear thy word with earnest attention and a fixed resolution to obey it. And when I approach thy altar, pour into my heart humility, faith, hope, love, and all those holy dispositions which become the solemn remem brance of a crucified Saviour. Let me employ this whole day to the ends for which it was ordained, in works of necessity and mercy, in prayer, praise, and meditation; and “let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, by always acceptable in thy sight.” I know, O Lord, that thou hast commanded me, and there fore it is my duty, to love thee with all my heart, and with all my strength. I know thou art infinitely holy and overflowing in all perfection; and therefore it is my duty so to love thee. . I know thou hast created me, and that I have neither being nor blessing but what is the effect of thy power and goodness. I know thou art the end for which I was created, and that I can expect no happiness but in thee. I know that in love to me, being lost in sin, thou didst send thy only Son, and that he, being the Lord of glory, did humble himself to the death upon the cross, that I might be raised to glory. I know thou hast provided me with all necessary helps for carrying me through this life to that eternal glory, and this out of the excess of thy pure mercy to me, unworthy of all mercies.

Heal, O Father of mercies, all my infirmities, (-) strengthen me against all my follies; forgive me all my sins, ( ) and let them not cry louder in thine ears for vengeance, than my prayers for mercy and forgiveness. Oblessed Lord, enable me to fulfil thy commands, and com mand what thou wilt. Othou Saviour of all that trust in thee, do with me what seemeth best in thine own eyes; only give me the mind which was in thee; let me learn of thee to be meek and lowly. Pour into me the whole spirit of humility; fill, I beseech thee, every part of my soul with it, and make it the constant, ruling habit of my mind, that all my other tempers may arise from it; that I may have no thoughts, no desires, no designs, but such as are the true fruit of a lowly spirit. Grant that I may think of myself as I ought to think, that I may “know myself, even as I am known.” Hercin may I exercise myself continually, when I lie down and when I rise up, that I may always appear poor, and little, and mean, and base, and vile in mine own eyes. O convince me that “I have neither learned wisdom, nor have the know ledge of the holy.” Give me a lively sense that I am nothing, that I have nothing, and that I can do nothing. Enable me to feel that I am all ignorance and error, weakness and uncleanness, sin and misery; that I am not worthy of the air I breathe, the earth I tread upon, or the sun that shines upon me. And let me be fully content when all other men think of me as I do of myself. O save me from either desiring or seeking the honour that cometh of men. Convince me that the words of praise, “when smoother than oil,” then especially “are very swords.” Give me to dread them more than the “poison of asps,” or “the pestilence that walketh in darkness.” And when these cords of pride, these snares of death, do overtake me, suffer me not to take any pleasure in them, but enable me instantly to flee unto thee, O Lord, and to complain unto my God.

2. In his early childhood he had much of the fear of God, and great tenderness of conscience. One day, having offended his father, who threatened to correct him, he did not dare to come into his presence, but retired into the garden; and when he saw him coming toward him, he ran away with all speed. But he was presently struck with deep remorse, and said to himself, “What I do I run away from my father? Perhaps I shall live to have a son that will run away from me.” And it was several years before the impression which he then received was worn off. 3. Another instance of his tenderness of conscience occurred when he was about seven years of age : He was one day reproved by the nursery-maid, saying, “You are a naughty boy. Do you not know, that the devil is to take away all naughty children?” He was no sooner in bed, than he began to reflect very deeply upon her words: He thought, “I am a naughty boy; and how do I know but God may let the devil take me away this night?” He then got up and wrestled with God in prayer for a considerable time; and he would not go to bed again till he believed God had forgiven him. 4. The following accounts Mr. Fletcher himself gave to Mr. Samuel Webb, of London, then residing at Madeley:-- “When I was a lad, I had a design to get some fruit out of my father's garden: The door being locked, I could not get in, but by climbing over the wall. This was very high; but with some difficulty I got to the top of it. As I was walking upon it, my foot slipped, and I fell down to the bottom. But just where I fell a large quantity of fresh made mortar was laid. I fell exactly upon it. This broke my fall, or it might have cost me my life. 5. “Once, as I was swimming by myself in a deep water, one end of a strong riband which bound my hair, getting loose I know not how, and twisting about my leg, tied me as it were neck and heels. I strove with all my strength to disengage myself; but it was to no purpose.

This was not done once or twice, but many times. And I have sometimes seen him on these occasions, once in particular, so filled with the love of God, that he could contain no more; but cried out, ‘O my God, withhold thy hand, or the vessel will burst.” But he afterwards told me, he was afraid he had grieved the Spirit of God; and that he ought rather to have prayed that the Lord would have enlarged the vessel, or have suffered it to break; that the soul might have no farther bar or inter ruption to its enjoyment of the supreme good.” This is certainly a just remark. The proper prayer on such an occasion would have been, Give me the enlarged desire, And open, Lord, my soul, Thy own fulness to require, And comprehend the whole ! Stretch my faith's capacity Wider, and yet wider still ; Then with all that is in thee My ravish'd spirit fill ! 11. “Such was the ordinary employment of this man of God while he remained at Trevecka. He preached the word of life to the students and family, and as many of the neighbour's as desired to be present. He was ‘instant in season, out of season;’ he ‘reproved, rebuked, exhorted, with all long suffering. He was always employed, either in discovering; some important truth, or exhorting to some neglected duty, or administering some needful comfort, or relating some useful anecdote, or making some profitable remark or observation upon anything that occurred. And his devout soul, always burning with love and zeal, led him to intermingle prayer with all he said. Meanwhile his manner was so solemn, and at the same time so mild and insinuating, that it was hardly pos sible for any who had the happiness of being in his company not to be struck with awe and charmed with love, as if in the presence of an angel or departed spirit. Indeed I frequently thought, while attending to his heavenly discourse and divine spirit, that he was so different from, and superior to, the gene rality of mankind, as to look more like Moses or Elijah, or some Prophet or Apostle come again from the dead, than a mortal man dwelling in a house of clay. It is true, his weak and long afflicted body proclaimed him to be human.

He answered me,-- “‘WHEN I first read yours, I must own, I suspected your friendship for Mr. Fletcher had made you too lavish in your commendation of his writings; and that when I came to read them, I should find some abatements necessary to be made. But now I have read them, I am far from thinking you have spoken extravagantly; or indeed, that too much can be said in commendation of them. I had not read his first Letter, before I was so charmed with the spirit as well as abilities of the writer, that the gushing tear could not be hin dered from giving full testimony of my heart-felt satisfaction. Perhaps some part of this pleasure might arise from finding my own sentiments so fully embraced by the author. But sure I am the greatest share of it arose from finding those benevolent doctrines so firmly established, and that with such judgment, clearness, and precision, as are seldom, very seldom to be met with. What crowns the whole is, the amiable and Christian temper, which those who will not be convinced must however approve, and wish that their own doctrines may be constantly attended with the same spirit.’” 17. How much good has been occasioned by the publication of that Circular Letter! This was the happy occasion of Mr. Fletcher's writing those “Checks to Antinomianism;” in which one knows not which to admire most, the purity of the language, (such as scarce any foreigner wrote before,) the strength and clearness of the argument, or the mildness and sweetness of the spirit that breathes throughout the whole; insomuch that I nothing wonder at a serious Clergyman, who, being resolved to live and die in his own opinion, when he was pressed to read them, replied, “No; I will never read Mr. Fletcher's Checks; for if I did, I should be of his mind.” 18. A short extract from another of his letters will show what was his state of mind at this crisis. “How much water,” says he, “may at last rush out from a little opening ! What are our dear L--’s jealousies come to? Ah, poor College | Their conduct, among other reasons, has stirred me up to write in defence of the Minutes. Methinks I dream, when I reflect I have wrote controversy the last subject I thought I should meddle with.

Presently the child’s convulsions ceased; and the mother was easy, lively, and strong. The people were utterly amazed, and stood speechless and almost senseless. While they were in this state, he silently withdrew. When they came to themselves, he was gone. Many of them asked who it could be; and some said, “Certainly it was an angel.” 19. When he had a little recovered his strength, he made a tour through Italy, and paid a visit to Rome. While he was here, as Mr. Ireland and he were one day going through one of the streets in a coach, they were informed, the Pope was coming forward; and it would be required of them to come out of the coach, and kneel while he went by, as all the people did: If they did not, in all probability the zealous mob would fall upon them and knock them on the head. But this, whatever might be the consequence, they flatly refused to do; judging the paying such honour to a man was neither better nor worse than idolatry. The coachman was exceed ingly terrified, not knowing what to do. However, at length he made shift to turn aside into a narrow way. The Pope was in an open landau. He waved his hands as if he had been swimming; and frequently repeated these words, “God bless you all!” Mr. Fletcher's spirit was greatly stirred, and he longed to bear a public testimony against Antichrist; and he would undoubtedly have done it, had he been able to speak Italian. He could hardly refrain from doing it in Latin, till he considered that only the Priests could have understood him. One to whom he related this, saying, if he had done this the multitude would have torn him in pieces; he answered, “I believe the Pope himself would have prevented; for he was a man of sense and humanity.” 20. While he was at Paris, he was desired to visit and pray with a sick woman. Information of this was quickly given to a Magistrate, with abundance of aggravation. In conse quence of this an order was procured from the King himself for the apprehending him. This might not improbably have cost him his life, or, at least, a long and expensive imprison ment. When the Officer came to the door of the house where he lodged, Mr.

But, waving this, can it possibly be supposed, that either Mr. Hill, or his sons, then verging toward manhood; would have borne the austere rigour and severity of a young man that received his bread from them? yea, and that year after year? Surely the supposition shocks all credibility. 8. Equally incredible is the assertion of his “austere severity and rigour ’’ toward the young men, at Trevecka. This is inconsistent with the whole account given by Mr. Benson, an eye and ear witness of all his conduct. Had it been true in any degree, would it have been possible that he should have been so esteemed and beloved by those very young men? I cannot form the least conjecture whence such an assertion could arise unless it was invented by some young man after Mr. Fletcher was dismissed, in order to ingratiate himself with his patroness. 9. The farther account which Mr. Benson gives of him from personal knowledge is this: “Mr. Fletcher,” says he, “was maturally a man of strong passions, and prone to anger in particular; insomuch that he has frequently thrown himself on the floor, and laid there most of the night bathed in tears, imploring victory over his own spirit. And he did not strive in vain; he did obtain the victory, in a very eminent degree. For twenty years and upwards before his death, no one ever saw him out of temper, or heard him utter a rash expression, on any provocation whatever. I have often thought the testimony that Bishop Burnet, in the History of his own Times, bears of Archbishop Leighton, might be borne of him with equal propriety: “After an intimate acquaintance with the Archbishop for many years, and after being with him by night and by day, at home and abroad, in public and in private, on sundry occasions and in various affairs, I must say, I never heard an idle word drop from his lips, nor any conversation which was not to the use of edifying. I never saw him in any temper in which I myself would not have wished to be found at death. Any that has been intimately acquainted with Mr. Fletcher will say the same of him. But they that knew him best, will say it with the most assurance. 10. His “disengagements from the world, and love of the poor,” Mrs. Fletcher joins together.

Neither ought he in anywise to cast away his confidence, or to deny the faith he has received, because it is weak, or because it is ‘tried with fire, so that his soul is ‘in heaviness through manifold temptations.” “Neither dare we affirm, as some have done, that all this salvation is given at once. There is indeed an instantaneous, as well as a gradual, work of God in his children; and there wants not, we know, a cloud of witnesses, who have received, in one moment, either a clear sense of the forgiveness of their sins, or the abiding witness of the Holy Spirit. But we do not know a single instance, in any place, of a person’s receiving, in one and the same moment, remission of sins, the abiding witness of the Spirit, and a new, a clean heart. “Indeed, how God may work, we cannot tell; but the general manner wherein he does work is this: Those who once trusted in themselves that they were righteous, that they were rich, and increased in goods, and had need of nothing, are, by the Spirit of God applying his word, convinced that they are poor and naked. All the things that they have done are brought to their remembrance and set in array before them, so that they see the wrath of God hanging over their heads, and feel that they deserve the damnation of hell. In their trouble they cry unto the Lord, and he shows them that he hath taken away their sins, and opens the kingdom of heaven in their hearts, ‘righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ Sorrow and pain are fled away, and “sin has no more dominion over them. Knowing they are justified freely through faith in his blood, they “have peace with God * Sometimes they do not; at other times they do, and that grievously. + Not all who are saved from sin; many of them have not attained it yet.

“A. By silence, he might avoid many crosses, which will naturally and necessarily ensue, if he simply declare, even among believers, what God has wrought in his soul. If, there fore, such a one were to confer with flesh and blood, he would be entirely silent. But this could not be done with a clear conscience; for undoubtedly he ought to speak. Men do not light a candle to put it under a bushel; much less does the all-wise God. He does not raise such a monument of his power and love, to hide it from all mankind. Rather, he intends it as a general blessing to those who are simple of heart. He designs thereby, not barely the happiness of that individual person, but the animating and encouraging others to follow after the same blessing. His will is, ‘that many shall see it’ and rejoice, ‘and put their trust in the Lord.” Nor does anything under heaven more quicken the desires of those who are justified, than to converse with those whom they believe to have experienced a still higher salvation. This places that salvation full in their view, and increases their hunger and thirst after it; an advantage which must have been entirely lost, had the person so saved buried himself in silence. “Q. But is there no way to prevent these crosses which usually fall on those who speak of being thus saved? “A. It seems they cannot be prevented altogether, while so much of nature remains even in believers. But something might be done, if the Preacher in every place would, (1.) Talk freely with all who speak thus; and, (2) Labour to prevent the unjust or unkind treatment of those in favour of whom there is reasonable proof. “Q. What is reasonable proof? How may we certainly know one that is saved from all sin 2 “A. We cannot infallibly know one that is thus saved, (no, nor even one that is justified,) unless it should please God to endow us with the miraculous discernment of spirits. But we apprehend those would be sufficient proofs to any reasonable man, and such as would leave little room to doubt either the truth or depth of the work: (1.) If we had clear evidence of his exemplary behaviour for some time before this supposed change.

But we apprehend those would be sufficient proofs to any reasonable man, and such as would leave little room to doubt either the truth or depth of the work: (1.) If we had clear evidence of his exemplary behaviour for some time before this supposed change. This would give us reason to believe, he would not “lie for God,” but speak neither more nor less than he felt; (2.) If he gave a distinct account of the time and manner wherein the change was wrought, with sound speech which could not be reproved; and, (3.) If it appeared that all his subsequent words and actions were holy and unblamable. “The short of the matter is this: (1) I have abundant reason to believe, this person will not lie; (2.) He testifies before God, ‘I feel no sin, but all love; I pray, rejoice, and give thanks without ceasing; and I have as clear an inward witness, that I am fully renewed, as that I am justified.” Mow, if I have nothing to oppose to this plain testimony, I ought in reason to believe it. “It avails nothing to object, “But I know several things wherein he is quite mistaken.” For it has been allowed, that all who are in the body are liable to mistake; and that a mistake in judgment may sometimes occasion a mistake in practice; though great care is to be taken that no ill use be made of this concession. For instance: Even one that is perfected in love may mistake with regard to another person, and may think him, in a particular case, to be more or less faulty than he really is. And hence he may speak to him with more or less severity than the truth requires. And in this sense, (though that be not the primary meaning of St. James,) “in many things we offend all. This therefore is no proof at all, that the person so speaking is not perfect. “Q. But is it not a proof, if he is surprised or fluttered by a noise, a fall, or some sudden danger? “A. It is not; for one may start, tremble, change colour, or be otherwise disordered in body, while the soul is calmly stayed on God, and remains in perfect peace.

“Q. How should we treat those who think they have attained? “A. Examine them candidly, and exhort them to pray fervently, that God would show them all that is in their Thearts. The most earnest exhortations to abound in cvery grace, and the strongest cautions to avoid all evil, are given throughout the New Testament, to those who are in the highest state of grace. But this should be done with the utmost tenderness; and without any harshness, sternness, or sourness. We should carefully avoid the very appearance of anger, unkindness, or contempt. Leave it to Satan thus to. tempt, and to his children to cry out, ‘Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meek ness and prove his patience.” If they are faithful to the grace. given, they are in no danger of perishing thereby; no, not if they remain in that mistake till their spirit is returning to God. “Q. But what hurt can it do to deal harshly with them? “A. Either they are mistaken, or they are not. If they are, it may destroy their souls. This is nothing impossible, no, nor improbable. It may so enrage or so discourage them, that they will sink and rise no more. If they are not mistaken, it may grieve those whom God has not grieved, and do much hurt unto our own souls. For undoubtedly he that toucheth them, toucheth, as it were, the apple of God's eye. If they are indeed full of his Spirit, to behave unkindly or contemptuously to them is doing no little despite to the Spirit of grace. Hereby, likewise, we feed and increase in ourselves evil surmising, and many wrong tempers. To instance only in one: What self-sufficiency is this, to set ourselves up for inquisitors-general, for peremptory judges in these deep things of God! Are we qualified for the office? Can we pronounce, in all cases, how far infirmity reaches? what may, and what may not, be resolved into it? what may in all circumstances, and what may not, consist with perfect love? Can we precisely determine, how it will influence the look, the gesture, the tone of voice? If we can, doubtless we are ‘the men, and wisdom shall die with us.” “Q. But if they are displeased at our not believing them, is not this a full proof against them? . “A.

There was danger before, and there will be again when he comes into fresh trials. But so long as he feels nothing but love animating all his thoughts, and words, and actions, he is in no danger; he is not only happy, but safe, ‘under the shadow of the Almighty;’ and, for God’s sake, let him continue in that love as long as he can. Meantime, you may do well to warn him of the danger that will be, if his love grow cold and sin revive; even the danger of casting away hope, and supposing, that, because he hath not attained yet, therefore he never shall. “Q. But what, if none have attained it yet? What, if all who think so are deceived? “A. Convince me of this, and I will preach it no more. But understand me right: I do not build any doctrine on this or that person. This or any other man may be deceived, and I am not moved. But, if there are none made perfect yet, God has not sent me to preach perfection. “Put a parallel case: For many years I have preached, “There is a peace of God which passeth all understanding.’ ‘Convince me that this word has fallen to the ground; that in all these years none have attained this peace; that there is no living witness of it at this day; and I will preach it no more. “‘O, but several persons have died in that peace. Per haps so; but I want living witnesses. I cannot indeed be infallibly certain that this or that person is a witness; but if I were certain there are mone such, I must have done with this doctrine. “‘You misunderstand me. I believe some who died in this love, enjoyed it long before their death. But I was not certain that their former testimony was true till some hours before they died.’ “You had not an infallible certainty then: And a reason able certainty you might have had before; such a certainty as might have quickened and comforted your own soul, and answered all other Christian purposes. Such a certainty as this, any candid person may have, suppose there be any living witness, by talking one hour with that person in the love and fear of God. “Q. But what does it signify, whether any have attained.

13. But if Christ has put an end to that law, what need of any atonement for their transgressing it? “A. Observe in what sense he has put an end to it, and the difficulty vanishes. Were it not for the abiding merit of his death, and his continual intercession for us, that law would condemn us still. These, therefore, we still need for every transgression of it. “Q. 14. But can one that is saved from sin be tempted? “A. Yes; for Christ was tempted. “Q. 15. However, what you call temptation, I call the corruption of my heart. And how will you distinguish one from the other? “A. In some cases it is impossible to distinguish, without the direct witness of the Spirit. But in general one may distinguish thus: “One commends me. Here is a temptation to pride. But instantly my soul is humbled before God. And I feel no pride; of which I am as sure, as that pride is not humility. “A man strikes me. Here is a temptation to anger. But my heart overflows with love. And I feel no anger at all; of which I can be as sure, as that love and anger are not the same. “A woman solicits me. Here is a temptation to lust. But in the instant I shrink back. And I feel no desire or lust at all; of which I can be as sure, as that my hand is cold or hot. “Thus it is, if I am tempted by a present object; and it is just the same, if, when it is absent, the devil recals a commenda tion, an injury, or a woman, to my mind. In the instant the soul repels the temptation, and remains filled with pure love. * “And the difference is still plainer, when I compare my present state with my past, wherein I felt temptation and corruption too. “Q. 16. But how do you know, that you are sanctified, saved from your inbred corruption? “A. I can know it no otherwise than I know that I am justified. ‘Hereby know we that we are of God,” in either sense, ‘by the Spirit that he hath given us.” “We know it by the witness and by the fruit of the Spirit. And, First, by the witness.

And, First, by the witness. As, when we were justified, the Spirit bore witness with our spirit, that our sins were forgiven; so, when we were sanctified, he bore witness, that they were taken away. Indeed, the witness of sanctification is not always clear at first; (as neither is that of justification;) neither is it afterward always the same, but, like that of justification, sometimes stronger and sometimes fainter. Yea, and some times it is withdrawn. Yet, in general, the latter testimony of the Spirit is both as clear and as steady as the former. “Q. 17. But what need is there of it, seeing sanctification is a real change, not a relative only, like justification? “A. But is the new birth a relative change only ? Is not this a real change? Therefore, if we need no witness of our sanctification, because it is a real change, for the same reason we should need none, that we are born of or are the children of God. “Q. 18. But does not sanctification shine by its own light? “A. And does not the new birth too? Sometimes it does; and so does sanctification; at others it does not. In the hour of temptation Satan clouds the work of God, and injects various doubts and reasonings, especially in those who have either very weak or very strong understandings. At such times there is absolute need of that witness; without which the work of sanctification not only could not be discerned, but could no longer subsist. Were it not for this, the soul could not then abide in the love of God; much less could it rejoice evermore, and in everything give thanks. In these circumstances, therefore, a direct testimony that we are sanctified is necessary in the highest degree. “‘But I have no witness that I am saved from sin. And yet I have no doubt of it.’ Very well: As long as you have no doubt, it is enough; when you have, you will need that witness. “Q. 19. But what scripture makes mention of any such thing, or gives any reason to expect it? “A. That scripture, ‘We have received, not the spirit that is of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we may know the things which are freely given us of God.” (1 Corinthians ii.

That scripture, ‘We have received, not the spirit that is of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we may know the things which are freely given us of God.” (1 Corinthians ii. 12.) “Now surely sanctification is one of ‘the things which are freely given us of God.’ And no possible reason can be assigned why this should be excepted, when the Apostle says, “We receive the Spirit” for this very end, ‘that we may know the things which are’ thus ‘freely given us.” “Is not the same thing implied in that well-known scripture, “The Spirit itself witnesseth with our spirit, that we are the children of God?’ (Romans viii. 16.) Does he witness this only to those who are children of God in the lowest sense? Nay, but to those also who are such in the highest sense. And does he not witness, that they are such in the highest sense ? What reason have we to doubt it? “What, if a man were to affirm, (as indeed many do,) that this witness belongs only to the highest class of Christians? Would not you answer, “The Apostle makes no restriction; therefore doubtless it belongs to all the children of God?” And will not the same answer hold, if any affirm, that it belongs only to the lowest class? “Consider likewise 1 John v. 19: ‘We know that we are of God. How? ‘By the Spirit that he hath given us.” Nay, “hereby we know that He abideth in us.” And what ground have we, either from Scripture or reason, to exclude the witness, any more than the fruit, of the Spirit, from being here intended? By this then also ‘we know that we are of God,” and in what sense we are so; whether we are babes, young men, or fathers, we know in the same manner. “Not that I affirm that all young men, or even fathers, have this testimony every moment. There may be inter missions of the direct testimony that they are thus born of God; but those intermissions are fewer and shorter as they grow up in Christ; and some have the testimony both of their justification and sanctification, without any intermission at all; which I presume more might have, did they walk humbly and closely with God. “Q. 20.

20. May not some of them have a testimony from the $pirit, that they shall not finally fall from God? “A. They may. And this persuasion, that neither life nor death shall separate them from Him, far from being hurtful, may in some circumstances be extremely useful. These therefore we should in mowise grieve, but earnestly encourage them to ‘hold the beginning of their confidence steadfast to the end.” “Q. 21. But have any a testimony from the Spirit that they shall never sin? “A. We know not what God may vouchsafe to some particular persons; but we do not find any general state described in Scripture, from which a man cannot draw back to sin. If there were any state wherein this was impossible, it would be that of these who are sanctified, who are ‘fathers in Christ, who rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in everything give thanks; but it is not impossible for these to draw back. They who are sanctified, yet may fall and perish. (Heb. x. 29.) Even fathers in Christ need that warning: ‘Love not the world.” (1 John ii. 15.) They who “rejoice, pray, and ‘give thanks without ceasing, may, nevertheless, ‘quench the Spirit.” (1 Thess. v. 16, &c.) Nay, even they who are ‘sealed unto the day of redemption,” may yet “grieve the Holy Spirit of God.” (Ephesians iv. 30.) “Although, therefore, God may give such a witness to some particular persons, yet it is not to be expected by Christians in general; there being no scripture whereon to ground such an expectation. “Q. 22. By what ‘fruit of the Spirit” may we ‘know that we are of God, even in the highest sense? “A. By love, joy, peace, always abiding; by invariable long suffering, patience, resignation; by gentleness, triumphing over all provocation; by goodness, mildness, sweetness, ten derness of spirit; by fidelity, simplicity, godly sincerity; by meekness, calmness, evenness of spirit; by temperance, not. only in food and sleep, but in all things natural and spiritual. “Q. 23. But what great matter is there in this? Have we not all this when we are justified? “A. What, total resignation to the will of God, without any mixture of self-will?' gentleness, without any touch of anger, even the moment we are provoked ? love to God, without the least love to the creature, but in and for God, excluding all pride?

Is thine eye evil, because he is good?” “It need not, therefore, be affirmed over and over, and proved by forty texts of Scripture, either that most men are perfected in love at last, that there is a gradual work of God in the soul, or that, generally speaking, it is a long time, even many years, before sin is destroyed. All this we know : But we know likewise, that God may, with man’s good leave, ‘cut short his work, in whatever degree he pleases, and do the usual work of many years in a moment. He does so in many instances; and yet there is a gradual work, both before and after that moment: So that one may affirm the work is gradual, another, it is instantaneous, without any manner of contradiction. “Q. 26. Does St. Paul mean any more by being ‘sealed with the Spirit, than being ‘renewed in love?’ “A. Perhaps in one place, (2 Cor. i. 22) he does not mean so much ; but in another, (Eph. i. 13,) he seems to include both the fruit and the witness; and that in a higher degree than we experience even when we are first ‘renewed in love;’ God “sealeth us with the Spirit of promise,’ by giving us ‘the full assurance of hope; such a confidence of receiving all the promises of God, as excludes the possibility of doubting; with that Holy Spirit, by universal holiness, stamping the whole image of God on our hearts. “Q. 27. But how can those who are thus sealed ‘grieve the Holy Spirit of God?” “A. St. Paul tells you very particularly, (1.) By such conversation as is not profitable, not to the use of edifying, not apt to minister grace to the hearers. (2.) By relapsing into bitterness or want of kindness. (3.) By wrath, lasting displeasure, or want of tender-heartedness. (4.) By anger, however soon it is over; want of instantly forgiving one another. (5.) By clamour or bawling, loud, harsh, rough speaking. (6.) By evil-speaking, whispering, tale-bearing; needlessly mentioning the fault of an absent person, though in ever so soft a manner. “Q. 28. What do you think of those in London, who seem to have been lately ‘renewed in love?’ “A. There is something very peculiar in the experience of the greater part of them.

“Some are wanting in temperance. They do not steadily use that kind and degree of food, which they know, or might know, would most conduce to the health, strength, and vigour of the body: Or they are not temperate in sleep; they do not rigorously adhere to what is best both for body and mind; otherwise they would constantly go to bed and rise early, and at a fixed hour: Or they sup late, which is neither good for body nor soul: Or they use neither fasting nor abstinence: Or they prefer (which are so many sorts of intemperance) that preaching, reading, or conversation, which gives them transient joy and comfort, before that which brings godly sorrow, or instruction in righteousness. Such joy is not sanctified; it doth not tend to, and terminate in, the crucifixion of the heart. Such faith doth not centre in God, but rather in itself. “So far all is plain. I believe you have faith, and love, and joy, and peace. Yet you who are particularly concerned know each for yourself, that you are wanting in the respects above-mentioned. You are wanting either in long-suffering, gentleness, or goodness; either in fidelity, meekness, or temperance. Let us not, then, on either hand, fight about words. In the thing we clearly agree. “You have not what I call perfection; if others will call it so, they may. However, hold fast what you have, and earnestly pray for what you have not. “Q. 29. Can those who are perfect grow in grace? “A. Undoubtedly they can; and that not only while they are in the body, but to all eternity. “Q. 30. Can they fall from it? “A. I am well assured they can; matter of fact puts this beyond dispute. Formerly we thought, one saved from sin could not fall; now we know the contrary. We are sur rounded with instances of those who lately experienced all that I mean by perfection. They had both the fruit of the Spirit, and the witness; but they have now lost both. Neither does any one stand by virtue of anything that is implied in the nature of the state. There is no such height or strength of holiness as it is impossible to fall from. If there be any that cannot fall, this wholly depends on the promise of God. “Q. 31.

Some Thoughts on an Expression of St. Paul in 1 Thessalonians v. 23 Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. THE words, as literally translated as the English tongue will bear, run thus: “May the whole of you, the spirit, and the soul, and the body, be preserved blameless.” What does St. Paul here mean by dividing man into three parts, “the spirit, and the soul, and the body?” This creates what has been thought an insurmountable difficulty by those who argue thus: “How is it possible to contradistinguish the soul both from the spirit and from the body? For it must be either material or immaterial, matter or not matter: There is no medium. But if it be matter, does it not co-incide with the body? If it be not matter, does it not co-incide with the spirit 7” But perhaps a way may be found of untieing this knot, of unraveling this difficulty, by simply declaring the (at least probable) meaning of these three terms. May not the spirit mean (so it has been understood by the Christians in all ages) the highest principle in man, the immortal spirit made in the image of God, endued (as all spirits are, so far as we can conceive) with self-motion, understanding, will, and liberty? Is not the body that portion of organized matter which every man receives in the womb, with which he is born into the world, and which he carries with him to the grave? At present it is connected with flesh and blood. But these are not the body. They are only the temporary clothing of the body, which it wholly puts off in the grave. The soul seems to be the immediate clothing of the spirit, the vehicle with which it is connected from its first existence, and which is never separated from it, either in life or in death. Probably it consists of ethereal or electric fire, the purest of all matter. It does not seem to be affected by the death of the body, but envelopes the separate, as it does the embodied, spirit; neither will it undergo any essential change, when it is clothed upon with the immortal body at the resurrection.

A Thought upon Marriage Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. I AM not now about to speak to men of the world, or to them that have only the form of religion; but to you who have experienced, if you do not now, the “faith which worketh by love:” And, in speaking to you, I do not peremptorily assert anything. I barely propose a thought that rises in my mind, and beg you to consider it. 2. You have some thoughts of altering your condition; and we know, “marriage is honourable in all men.” But is your eye single herein? This is worthy your most serious consideration. Retire a little into yourself, and ask your own heart : “What is it moves me to think of this?” 3. I will tell you how it was with me: Though I do not know I was ever low-spirited, (my spirits being always the same, whether in sickness or in health,) yet I was often uneasy. Even in vigorous health, in plenty, and in the midst of my friends, I wanted something; I was not satisfied. I looked about for happiness, but could not find it. Then I thought, “O, if I had but such a person with me, I should surely be happy.” I mused with myself, “How lovely is her look How agreeably she talks !” I thought of Sappho’s words:-- “Bless'd as the immortal gods is he, The youth that fondly sits by thee; And hears and sees thee all the while Softly speak and sweetly smile.” “Surely, this is the very thing I want; and could I attain it, I should then no more be solitary ! For,-- Thou from all shades the darkness wouldst exclude, And from a desert banish solitude : Therefore, with her I can be happy; without her I never can.” 4. Perhaps your case is something like mine. Let me then ask you a few questions. Were you ever convinced of sin? of your lost, undone state? Did you feel the wrath of God abiding on you? If so, what did you then want to make you happy? “To know, my God is reconciled.” You had your wish. You were enabled to say boldly, “I know that my Redeemer liveth.” And were not you then happy? “Indeed I was.” In what?

Accordingly, it is objected, First, “If God has given us plentiful fortunes, if we are placed in the higher ranks of life, we must act suitably to our fortune. We ought to dress according to our rank; that is, in gold and costly apparel.” Not to insist that mone of you are of this rank, I answer, Where is this written? Our Saviour once occasionally said, “Behold, they who wear gorgeous” (splendid) “apparel, are in Kings’ courts;” but he docs not say, they ought to be even there; he neither enjoins nor countenances it. And where is this either enjoined or allowed by IIim or any of his Apostles? Bring me plain, scriptural proof for your assertion, or I cannot allow it. 2. “But did not God give express command by Moses, that some even among his chosen people should be adorned in the most exquisite manner with gold and precious stones, and costly array?” Indeed he did; he expressly commanded this with regard to Aaron and his successors in the IIigh Priesthood. But to this I answer, First, This direction which God gave, with regard to thc Jewish IIigh Priest, cau certainly affect no person in England, unless the Archbishop of Canterbury; and I apprehend, he docs not plead the precedent. Secondly, The Jews and we are under different dispensations. The glory of the whole Mosaic dispensation was chiefly visible and cxternal; whereas the glory of the Christian dispensation is of an invisible and spiritual nature. 3. “But what then are gold and precious stones for? Why have they a place in the creation?” What, if I say I cannot tell? There are abundance of things in the creation which I do not know the use of. What are crocodiles, lions, tigers, scorpions for? Why have so many poisons a place in the creation? Some of them are for medicine: But what ever they are for, in whatever manner they may be useful, they are certainly not to be used in such a manner as God has expressly forbidden. 4. “But if they were not thus adorned, Kings and Generals would be despised by their subjects and soldiers.” Supposing they would, that is nothing to you; for you are neither Kings nor Generals. But it is absolutely certain they would not, if they were not despised on other accounts.

A Remarkable Providence Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- A GENTLEMAN walking with Mr. Chapoon, (uncle to Mr. Roquet) in Moorfields, proposed stepping into Bedlam. After they had walked there awhile, they were turning to go out, when a young woman cried, “Sir, I desire to speak with you.” His friend said, “Sure, you will not stay to hear a mad woman’s tale.” He answered, “Indeed I will:” On which the other went away. She then said, “My father left me and my fortune in the hands of my uncle. A young gentleman offered me marriage, and all things were agreed 498 Account of THE BROTHERs’ sTEPs. on; when one morning my uncle took me out with him in the chariot, as he said, to see a friend; but instead of this he brought me to Bedlam, where I have been confined ever since.” “Your story is plausible,” said Mr. C.; “but how shall I know it is the truth?” “Very easily,” said she, “The gentleman that was to marry me lives within a day's journey of London. Write to him; and tell him you have something to say concerning me, and would be glad to meet him at such a place in town. If he does not come, let this all pass for a mad woman’s dream.” Mr. C. wrote, and asked the gentleman, who came to the place appointed, whether he knew such a person. He answered, “Perfectly well. We were to have been married before now ; but her uncle sent me word she was taken ill.” Mr. C. then told him the whole story. He immediately sent to her uncle; who was very ready to take her out, and pay her fortune, to avoid farther trouble. So the curiosity of one to see a strange place, and of another to hear a strange tale, was a means of detecting a notorious scene of villany, and of setting an innocent sufferer at liberty

An Answer to a Report Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- I HAVE lately heard; to my no small surprise, that a person professing himself a Quaker, and supposed to be a man of some character, has confidently reported, that he has been at Sunderland himself, and inquired into the case of Elizabeth Hobson; that she was a woman of a very indiffer ent character; that the story she told was purely her own invention; and that John Wesley himself was now fully convinced that there was no truth in it. From what motive a man should invent and publish all over England (for I have heard this in various places) a whole train of absolute, notorious falsehoods, I cannot at all imagine. On the contrary, I declare to all the world, 1. That Elizabeth Hobson was an eminently pious woman; that she lived and died without the least blemish of any kind, without the least stain upon her character. 2. That the relation could not possibly be her own invention, as there were many witnesses to several parts of it; as Mr. Parker, the two Attorneys whom she employed, Miss Hosmer, and many others. And, 3. That I myself am fully persuaded, that every circumstance of it is literally and punctually true. I know that those who fashionably deny the existence of spirits are hugely disgusted at accounts of this kind. I know that they incessantly labour to spread this disgust among those that are of a better mind; because if one of these accounts be admitted, their whole system falls to the ground. But, whoever is pleased or displeased, I must testify what I believe to be the truth. Indeed I never myself saw the appearance of an umbodied spirit; and I never saw the commission of a murder. Yet, upon the testimony of unexceptionable witnesses, I can firmly believe both one and the other. September 12, 1782.

A Letter to a Friend Concerning Tea Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Year: 1748 Author: John Wesley --- 1. I HAve read your letter with attention, and much approve of the spirit with which it is wrote... You speak in love. I desire to do so too; and then no harm can be done on either side. You appear not to be wedded to your own opinion, but open to further conviction. I would willingly be of the same temper; not obstimately attached to either side of the question. I am clearly satisfied of the necessity of this; a willingness to see what as yet I see not. For I know, an unwillingness to be convinced would utterly blind either you or me; and that if we are resolved to retain our present opinion, reason and argument signify nothing. 2. I shall not therefore think it is time or pains misem ployed, to give the whole cause a second hearing; to recite the occasion of every step I have taken, and the motives inducing me so to do; and then to consider whatsoever either you or others have urged on the contrary side of the question. 3. Twenty-nine years since, when I had spent a few months at Oxford, having, as I apprehended, an exceeding good constitution, and being otherwise in health, I was a little surprised at some symptoms of a paralytic disorder. I could not imagine what should occasion the shaking of my hand; till I observed it was always worst after breakfast; and that if I intermitted drinking tea for two or three days, it did not shake at all. Upon inquiry, I found tea had the same effect upon others also of my acquaintance; and therefore saw that this was one of its natural effects, (as several Physicians have often remarked,) especially when it is largely and fre quently drank; and most of all on persons of weak nerves. Upon "--~" -- this I lessened the quantity, drank it weaker, and added more milk and sugar. But still for above six-and-twenty years I was more or less subject to the same disorder. 4.

(6.) Try ten or twelve other English herbs. (7.) Try foltron, a mixture of herbs to be had at many grocers’, far healthier, as well as cheaper, than tea. (8.) Try cocoa. If, after having tried each of these for a week or ten days, you find none of them will agree with your constitution, then use (weak green) tea again; but at the same time know, that your having used it so long has brought you near the chambers of death. 17. II. “I do not know,” says another, “but tea may hurt me; but there is nothing saved by leaving it off; for I am sure other things cost full as much.” I pray, what other things? Sack-and-sugar costs more; and so do ragouts, or pheasants, or ortolans. But what is this to the point? We do not say, All things are cheaper: But any of the things above mentioned are; at least, if prudently managed. Therefore, if you really desire to save what you can, you will drink tea no more. 18. “Well, I do not design to buy any more myself; but where others drink it, there is nothing saved by my abstaining.” I answer, First, Yes, something is saved, though but little; especially if you tell them before, “I shall not drink tea.” And many a little you know, put together, will make a great sum. Secondly, If the whole saved were ever so little, if it were but two mites, when you save this for God, and your brethren’s sake, it is much. Thirdly, Your example in saving a little now, may occasion the saving of more by and by. Fourthly, It is not a little advantage which you may reap, even now, to your own soul; by habituating yourself not to be ashamed of being singular in a good thing; by taking up your cross, and denying yourself even in so small an instance, and by accustoming yourself to act on rational grounds, whether in a little matter or a great. 19. “But what is saved will be no better employed.” Do you say this with regard to yourself, or others? If with regard to yourself, it will be your fault if you do not employ it better.

1724 To his Brother Samuel [1] OXON, June 17, 1724. DEAR BROTHER, -- I believe I need not use many arguments to show I am sorry for your misfortune, though at the same time I am glad you are in a fair way of recovery. If I had heard of it from any one else, I might probably have pleased you with some impertinent consolations; but the way of your relating it is a sufficient proof that they are what you don’t stand in need of. And indeed, if I understand you rightly, you have more reason to thank God that you did not break both, than to repine because you have broke one leg. You have undoubtedly heard the story of the Dutch seaman who having broke one of his legs by a fall from the main-mast instead of condoling himself, thanked God that he had not broke his neck. [See Spectator, No. 574.] I scarce know whether your first news vexed me, or your last news pleased me, more; but I can assure you that, though I did not cry for grief at the former, I did for joy at the latter part of your letter. The two things that I most wished for of almost anything in the world were to see my mother and Westminster once again; 'and to see them both together was so far above my expectations that I almost looked upon it as next to an impossibility. I have been so very frequently disappointed when I had set my heart on any pleasure, that I will never again depend on any before it comes. However, I shall be obliged to you if you will tell me as near as you can how soon my uncle is expected in England and my mother in London. I hope my sister is pretty well recovered by this time, and that all at Westminster are in as good health as Your loving Brother. PS.--Pray give my service to Mrs. Harris, and as many as ask after me. Since you have a mind to see some of my verses, I have sent you some, which employed me above an hour yesterday in the afternoon. There is one, and I am afraid but one, good thing in them--that is, they are short. As o'er fair Cloe’s rosy cheek, Careless, a little vagrant passed, With artful hand around his neck

The substance of it was this. It was told to the Bishop that a lad in his diocese frequently bragged that he was carried up into the air by invisible hands; who immediately sent for him to find out the truth. The lad in private, though not without menacing, confessed that he was often carried into the air, by he knew not whom, to a fine palace; where he was made to sit down at table with a great many people, who feasted and made merry; but that he was afraid they would be angry with him for telling it. The Bishop endeavored by many arguments to dissuade him from spreading such stories, which he told him could not be true, and were at best but the effects of a troubled fancy. But the boy persisted in it, and told his lordship that if he would have a little patience he would presently be convinced of the truth of his relation; for by certain symptoms which he said always preceded his transportation, he was sure it was not far off. This was presently confirmed in the Bishop's presence, the boy being hoisted away out of the window, to his no small amazement. The next day about the same time the boy was let down into the same room, but so bruised and dispirited that it was an hard matter to get a word from him. After some time and repeated threats and promises, he told the Bishop that he was carried to the place he had before spoken of, but that instead of sitting down, as he used to do' with the company, one or two were set apart to beat him, while the rest were making merry. His lordship now believed it was something more than a jest, being convinced that it was the devil, who for some unknown reasons was permitted to exert an extraordinary power over this lad. He nevertheless proceeded to comfort and pray by him; yet even while he was praying the boy was once more taken from him, nor was he restored again till some hours into the same chamber.

1727 To his Mother LINCOLN COLLEGE, January 25, 1727. DEAR MOTHER, -- I am shortly to take my Master's degree. [He took his M.A. on Feb. 14, gaining considerable reputation by his disputation for the degree. He told Henry Moore that he delivered three lectures: De Anima Brutorum, on Natural Philosophy; De Julio Caesare, on Moral Philosophy; and De Amore Dei, on Religion.] As I shall from that time be less interrupted by business not of my own choosing, I have drawn up for myself a scheme of studies from, which I do not intend, for some years at least, to very. I am perfectly come over to your opinion that there are many truths it is not worth while to know. Curiosity, indeed, might be a sufficient plea for our laying out some time upon them, if we had half a dozen centuries of life to come; but methinks it is great ill-husbandry to spend a considerable part of the small pittance now allowed us in what makes us neither a quick nor a sure return.

'There are, and necessarily must be, some original, intrinsic agreements and disagreements, fitnesses and unfitnesses, of certain things and circumstances, to and with each other; which are antecedent to all positive institutions, founded on the very nature of those things and circumstances, considered in themselves, and in their relation to each other. 'Farther: it noway derogated from any one perfection of an infinite Being to endow other beings which he made with such a power as we call liberty -- that is, to furnish them with such capacities, dispositions, and principles of action, that it should be possible for them either to observe or to deviate from those eternal rules and measures of fitness and agreeableness, with respect to certain things and circumstances, which were so conformable to the infinite rectitude of his own will, and which infinite reason must necessarily discover. Now, evil is a deviation from those measures of eternal, unerring order and reason; not to choose what is worthy to be chosen, and is accordingly chose by such a will as the divine. And, to bring this about, no more is necessary than the exerting certain acts of that power we call free will. By which power we are enabled to choose or refuse, and to determine ourselves to action accordingly. Therefore, without having recourse to any ill principle, we may fairly account for the origin of evil from the possibility of a various use of our liberty; even as that capacity or possibility itself is ultimately founded on the defectibility and finiteness of a created nature.'--I am, dear sir, Your dutiful and affectionate Son.

What can Selima think of my long silence Will it admit of any honorable interpretation Can you believe that any business is of such importance as to excuse it in the least degree That I might not seem utterly inexcusable, I have been several times for throwing everything by; and should have done it had I not been persuaded that you would not condemn me unheard. Every day since my return hither I have been engaged in business of far greater concern than life or death; and business which, as it could not be delayed, so no one else could do it for me. Had it not been for this, I should long before now have returned my sincerest thanks to Selima, which are due to her on so many accounts that I know not where to begin. Happy indeed should I have been, had it been my lot to meet you once more in that delightful vale! What we could, we did. The places where she was, we visited more than once. And though Selima herself was not there, yet there we could find the remembrance of her. The more I think of you, the more convinced I am that here at least I am not guilty of flattery when I mention the vast advantage you have over me in gratitude as well as humility. The least desire of being serviceable to you is received by you as a real service, and acknowledged in so obliging a manner that at the same time I am quite ashamed of doing so little to deserve it. You give me an inexpressible pleasure. How differently turned is my mind! how little moved with the most valuable benefits! In this, too, give me of your spirit, Selima: let me imitate as well as admire.

SIR, -- I am almost afraid to own my having had both your letters, lest I should forfeit that good opinion that I extremely desire Cyrus should always have of Aspasia. I must farther confess that, had I not received the second letter, I should not have had courage to have wrote. I am but too sensible how unequal I am to the task. Could I, like our inimitable dear Varanese, express my sentiments, with what pleasure should I agree to the obliging request you make! But why should I be afraid of your superior understanding when I know at the same time the delight you take in not only entertaining but improving all those you converse with Then take me into your protection. Look on me as one surrounded with infirmities and imperfections, who flies to you for assistance against the assaults of vanity and passion. If you are desirous I should think you my friend, let this be the trial of it, not to leave any of my follies unreproved. I shall not scruple to discover to you those many defects which on a longer acquaintance with me your own observation must have pointed out to you; and it is no small argument of the great desire I have of improvement that I will run so great a hazard, for certainly you will value me less when you know how weak I am. You have no reason to make an apology for recommending the book you mention (which I suppose was the Bishop of Cork's). I have not yet read it; but I shall wait with impatience for the Abstract [See previous letter and that of Feb. 13, 1731.] you promise me, which I am sure will very well deserve the time I shall bestow in reading of it. My stay in Gloucester is uncertain; but when we go to town we shall call at Oxford, where we shall not fail of inquiring after Cyrus and Araspes. Selima adds: Aspasia is called away before she has finished her letter, and has not said one word for Selima, who thinks of Cyrus and Araspes with that esteem their merit justly claims, desires always to be thought their friend, and wishes Selima was worthy of it. When we go to Oxford, we don't know at what college to inquire after our agreeable friends. Mrs. Pendarves writes: GLOUCASTETR, October 26 [1730].

The few hours that Selima and Aspasia enjoyed the conversation of Cyrus and Araspes are too valuable to be forgot; which I should sooner have endeavored to convince you of if I could have found time: and the favor of the book is of so high a nature that we can never be so ungrateful as to look on it without the greatest thankfulness. How happy should we have been to have heard it read by one who so well knows to recommend everything he approves of! I am sensible there must be several things we shall not be able to comprehend in such a treatise; you must therefore give me leave to trouble you with my ignorance by desiring your explanation of what I may not understand. I hope we shall hear from you soon; I have not time now to enlarge my letter. I must again repeat my acknowledgements for the friendship you have shown us in many instances. Selima and Aspasia will always gratefully remember them. To Mrs. Pendarves February 19 [1731]. Yes, it is better to assure Aspasia now, though it be but in one line, that I am sensible of her strange goodness in thus preventing me a second time, than to put off still what, could it have been avoided, ought not to have been delayed a moment. But what can I do, thus hemmed in as I am with business over and above my own I am persuaded you would not condemn me, Aspasia, did you know how many days pass over my head in which I have not one poor hour from five to seven but what is engaged long before it comes. Yet never shall any engagement of any kind make me so false both to justice and friendship as to neglect any commands which I may have the pleasure of receiving from Aspasia or Selima. That particular .one which your last gives me leave to expect, I should earnestly have requested myself had not you mentioned it first. O Aspasia, how gladly should I receive into my soul your ignorance of some points in philosophy could ignorance of pride, ingratitude, and passion pass at the same time into (I dare hardly say) Your friend, CYRUS. When Aspasia or Selima is the theme', I speak the sense of Araspes in my own. Adieu. Mrs. Pendarves replies:

I had rather expose my own ignorance in writing than not hear from Cyrus and Araspes, whose letters give so much pleasure and improvement to your friends. Beside, at present I have my mother's commands to warrant my own inclination. She orders me to be very particular in her acknowledgements of the last letter she received from you. We were extremely vexed when we came [to Stanton] to find our agreeable friends had left it. [He was at Stanton on April 19.] Except that disappointment, our journey was as prosperous as we could wish. But my sister was not with us. The weakness we felt at parting we endeavored to correct by saying, Would not Cyrus blame us for this The reflection dried our tears; but, I must confess sincerely, it did not ease our pain. Is not this wrong in us Did I (for my sister has more fortitude) make a proper progress in Christianity, the things of this world would certainly be more indifferent to me than I find they are. How shall I learn the happiness of being above trifles Nobody can so well point out the way to me as yourself. But I could not make such a request did I not know how ready you are to do good. I have not had the pleasure of a letter since I came home from our valuable Sappho, [Miss Sally Kirkham (1699-1764), eldest daughter of the Rev. Lionel Kirkham, Rector of Stanton. In

It is easy to observe that almost every one thinks that rule totally needless which he does not need himself; and as to the Christian spirit itself, almost every one calls that degree of it which he does not himself aim at, enthusiasm. If, therefore, we plead for either (not as if we thought the former absolutely needful, neither as if we had attained the latter), it is no great wonder that they who are not for us in practice should be against us. If you, who are a less prejudiced judge, have perceived us faulty in this matter, too superstitious or enthusiastic, or whatever it is to be called, we earnestly desire to be speedily informed of our error, that we may no longer spend our strength on that which profiteth not. Or whatever there may be on the other hand, in which you have observed us to be too remiss, that likewise we desire to know as soon as possible. This is a subject which we would understand with as much accuracy as possible; it being hard to say which is of the worse consequence, -- the being too strict, the really carrying things too far, the wearying ourselves and spending our strength in burdens that are unnecessary; or the being frightened by those terrible words from what, if not directly necessary, would at least be useful. To Ann Granville [4] June 17 [1731]. In what words can I express my thanks to Selima for the favorable opinion she entertains of myself, of which she has given me so obliging a proof, as I extremely desired but knew not how to ask for

O Selima, teach me to submit to such a trial, if ever it should be my portion: tell me how you let yours down to such capacities, and sustain the insipidness of such conversations, how you do to possess your soul in patience, when the floods of impertinence are around you. I have often wondered how so active a spirit as yours, that was not made for a common share of glory, but to force its way through all impediments to the heights of knowledge and virtue--how such a spirit as yours could bear with calmness to have its flight stopped in the mid-way by those mere children of earth, who will not take pains to be even as the angels of God in heaven; nay, who perhaps would not be angels if they might, since 'tis sure those ancient heirs of salvation are therefore the most happy because they are the most active of all created beings. I have lately had the pleasure of two letters from Aspasia, [July 21 and 29.] and hoped for a still greater in waiting upon her next week; but her last informed me she is out of town, and does not return this fortnight, before which time I must leave it. I believe Providence is more careful of me than I am of myself, and knowing that, were I to see Aspasia or Selima often, I could not possibly act up to the favorable opinion they are pleased to entertain of us, removes me (for my interest, though against my choice) from the opportunities of betraying my weakness. If I have fewer opportunities, too, of expressing my gratitude in writing than I could wish, let it not deprive me of the pleasure of sometimes hearing from Selima, yet let me steal a few moments from you. I am sure none of them that converse with you (on however so many accounts besides you may give them the preference) are more thankful for that favor than Your most obliged and most obedient CYRUS. To Mrs. Pendarves August 12 [1731].

I could not be unmindful of Aspasia in the stormy weather we had at the beginning of this month; though I did not receive your last till near three weeks after, when you too, I hope, had ended your journey. 'Tis not strange that one who knows how to live should not be afraid to die; since the sting of death is sin. Rather it would have been strange if Aspasia had been afraid, if either her nature or her faith had failed her: as well knowing that where death is the worst of ills there it is the greatest of blessings. I am very sensible of the confidence you repose in me, in telling me the whole of your friend's case-illness. The symptoms you mention are these: (1) the expecting great civilities from her acquaintance, with an aptness to think herself neglected by them; (2) a deep sadness upon the apprehension of their unkindness and the supposed loss of their affections, which often carries her to such a length as to believe that God will forsake her too; (3) a desire to be equally well dressed with her companions, though she has not an equal fortune. The first question is, therefore, what disorder it is that is the cause of these effects. One person I knew who had every one of these symptoms: she expected great civilities, and was extremely apt to think her acquaintance neglected her and showed less respect to her than to other people; the apprehension of whose unkindness, joining with ill-health, sometimes made her deeply melancholy. I have often known her pained at being worse dressed than her companions, and have heard her say more than once that few trials she had met with in her life were harder to be borne.

I know none more likely to be an instrument in His hand to perform this work of omnipotence than Aspasia. For you will not depend on your own strength while you insinuate to her the great cause of her melancholy; while you use all your address to make her sensible how apt vanity is to steal in even upon the best tempers; how useful it might be, seeing nothing but the finger of God can cast out this stubborn spirit, to mix with (intersperse) all our solemn addresses to Him with particular petitions against it. O Aspasia, how amiable do you appear while you are employed in such offices as these, especially in the eyes of Him who seeth more clearly than man seeth ! how just a return are you making to Him for the talents He has bestowed upon you I and how generous a use of your power over your friends while you thus direct it all to their advantage ! Watch over me too for good, Aspasia. Though we are far, far divided as to our persons, yet let your thoughts (at least morning and evening) be with Your most obliged friend and servant, CYRUS. Is there need for Aspasia to desire one thing twice of Cyrus or Araspes I hope both of them are more sensible of their obligations to her. Adieu. To Ann Granville October 3 [1731]. 'Tis in vain for me to think I shall ever be able to tell Selima how much I am obliged to her for her last. Why do you thus add to the obligations that were before too great to admit of any return I am now entirely reconciled to my late disappointment by the charming manner in which you mention it, and share in the pleasure of your lovely conversations while you tell me I was thought of in them. Nothing could give me a livelier satisfaction, unless I should once again meet Selima, and assure her that those are some of the happiest hours of my life when I can give any proof of the value I have for her friendship, and that no employment is more agreeable to me than that which gives me any hopes of improving it.

Now give me leave to say that I can't find out the advantage of losing the conversation of particular sensible and virtuous friends. Their words, their example excite us on to goodness; they blow up and keep alive those sparks of religion which are too apt (with sorrow I speak it) to grow faint and languid. I can recollect many instances where they have been of advantage to me. At church their attention has increased mine. At home they have begun good conversations that I have been the better for; as we were often together, we used to assist each other in bearing a multitude of impertinence that I am now forced to support singly. Now, have I not more reason to imagine 'twas rather for their good than mine that they were removed Now, I fear I show great arrogance to deny anything you say, but I only make this objection in order to be more fully convinced. No one can do it so soon as Cyrus. His arguments are so plain and sensible, and withal so well expressed, they please the fancy while they inform the understanding; which is what I very seldom have met with before, most instructive things being dry and tedious--at least to me, who cannot, like my dear Sappho, search for through all her obscure recesses. I am now reading a book I want your opinion of. 'Tis Mr. Burkitt's Explanation of the New Testament; he calls it Expository Notes with Practical Observations. Sure Cyrus cannot sit without a fire this weather. I hope the good Society prospers; one way I'm sure they do. I often think of them, especially when the cold makes me shrink. They are those that are chosen of peculiar grace; the influence of it will, I hope, extend to their weaker brethren. The last letter I had from Aspasia she said she was very much concerned she had not writ to you, and desired me to assure the good brothers of her friendship and good wishes, as does my mother, who is very much out of order with a cold. The last time I heard from Sappho she was well. Is not Araspes' hymn quite charming You have not sent your poetic herd so far but you can call them in whenever you please.

Cyrus may be certain I shall never forget him in the only way I can show my gratitude to him. Oh that I had reason to think my prayers would be as efficacious as his with[out] doubt are l What is uttered with so much real piety must be successful for himself and for his friends. There I hope he will always place

When I observe how fast life flies away, and how slow improvement comes, I think one can never be too much afraid of dying before one has learned to live; I mean, even in the course of nature. For were I sure that 'the silver cord' should not be violently 'loosed,' that 'the wheel' should not ' be broken at the cistern,' till it was quite worn away by its own motion, yet what a time would this give for such a work A moment to transact the business of eternity ! What are forty years in comparison of this So that were I sure of what never man yet was sure of, how little would it alter the case! How justly still might I cry out: Downward I hasten to my destined place; There none obtain Thy aid, none sing Thy praise! Soon shall I lie in death's deep ocean drowned: Is mercy there, is sweet forgiveness found O save me yet, while on the brink I stand; Rebuke these storms, and set me safe on land ! O make my longings and Thy mercy sure! Thou art the God of power. [Prior's Considerations on Part of the 88th Psalm.] A year ago Mr. Morgan was exceedingly well pleased with the thought of dying shortly. He will not now bear to have it named, though he can neither sleep, read, stand, nor sit. Yet without hands, or feet, or head, or heart, he is very sure his illness is not increased. Surely now he is a burthen to himself and almost useless in the world; his discharge cannot be far off. Dear mother, there is but one cause of uneasiness which I sometimes find in your behavior towards me. You perform the noblest offices of love for me, and yet blame the Fountain from whence they flow. You have more than once said you loved me too well and would strive to love me less. Now this it is I complain of. You do not think natural affection evil in itself; far from it. But you say you have but little time to stay in the world, and therefore should not have much affection for anything in it. Most true: not any of those things which perish with the world. But am I one of those

It is true, indeed, that 'the devil hates offensive war most '; and that whoever tries to rescue more than his own soul from his hands, will have more enemies and meet with greater opposition than if he was content with 'having his own life for a prey.' That I try to do this is likewise certain; but I cannot say whether I 'rigorously impose any observances on others ' till I know what that phrase means. What I do is this: when I am entrusted with a person who is first to understand and practice, and then to teach, the law of Christ, I endeavor, by an intermixture of reading and conversation, to show him what that law is--that is, to renounce all insubordinate love of the world, and to love and obey God with all his strength. When he appears seriously sensible of this, I propose to him the means God hath commanded him to use in order to that end; and, a week, or a month, or a year after, as the state of his soul seems to require it, the several prudential means recommended by wise and good men. As to the times, order, measure, and manner wherein these are to be proposed, I depend upon the Holy Spirit to direct me, in and by my own experience and reflection, joined to the advices of my religious friends here and elsewhere. Only two rules it is my principle to observe in all cases: first, to begin, continue, and end all my advices in the spirit of meekness, as knowing that' the wrath ' or severity' of man worketh not the righteousness of God '; and, secondly, to add to meekness longsuffering, in pursuance of a rule which I fixed long since--never to give up any one till I have tried him at least ten years. How long hath God had pity on thee

'Tis true they have not yet laughed your son out of all his diligence; but how long it will be before they have, God knows. They zealously endeavor it at all convenient opportunities; and temporal views are as unable to support him under such an attack as his slender notions of religion are; of which, he often says, he thinks he shall have enough if he constantly says his prayers at home and in the chapel. As to my advice on this or any other head, they had secured him pretty wall before; and your authority added to theirs has supplied him with armor of proof against it. I now beg to know what you would have me do. Shall I sit still, and let him swim down the stream Or shall I plunge in, bound as I am hand and foot, and oppose myself to his company, his inclinations, and his father

15. But for the proof of every one of these weighty truths experience is worth a thousand reasons. I see, I feel them every day. Sometimes I cannot do good to others because I am unwilling to do it: shame or pain is in the way; and I do not desire to serve God at so dear a rate. Sometimes I cannot do the good I desire to do because I am in other respects too unholy. I know within myself, were I fit to be so employed, God would employ me in this work. But my heart is too unclean for such mighty works to be wrought by my hands. Sometimes I cannot accomplish the good I am employed in, because I do not pray more, and more fervently; and sometimes, even when I do pray, and that instantly, because I am not worthy that my prayer should be heard. Sometimes I dare not attempt to assist my neighbor, because I know the narrowness of my heart, that it cannot attend to many things without utter confusion and dissipation of thought. And a thousand times have I been mercifully withheld from success in the things I have attempted, because, were one so proud and vain enabled to gain others, he would lose his own soul.

1735 To his Mother OXON, January 13, 1735 DEAR MOTHER, -- Give my leave to say once more that our folks do, and will I supose to the end of the chapter, mistake the question. Supposing him changed Say they. Right: but that supposition has not proof yet - whether it may have: when it has, then we may come to our other point, whether all this be not providence, i.e. blessing. And whether we are empowered so to judge, condemn, and execute an imprudent Christian, as God forbid I should ever use a Turk or Deist.

SIR, -- You apprehended strong opposition before you went hence; and, unless we are misinformed, you have found it. Yesterday morning I read a letter from London, wherein it was asserted that Sir Robert had turned against you [He sailed for England on Nov. 23, 1736, and evidently found Walpole unfriendly. Oglethorpe's work for Georgia was ' marred by some faults of temper and tact, but it was on the whole able, energetic, and fortunate ' (Lecky's England, ii. 132). Wesley's loyalty to Oglethorpe did not blind him to some blemishes in his behavior in Georgia; but he highly appreciated his work and policy there (Journal, i. 252-3n). Walpole was then First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer.] ; that the Parliament was resolved to make a severe scrutiny into all that has been transacted here; that the cry of the nation ran the same way; and that even the Trustees were so far from acknowledging the service you have done, that they had protested your bills, and charged you with misapplying the moneys you had received, and with gross mismanagement of the power wherewith you was entrusted. Whether these things are so or no I know not; for it is ill depending on a single evidence. But this I know, that if your scheme was drawn (which I shall not easily believe) from that first-born of hell, Nicholas Machiavel, as sure as there is a God that governs the earth, He will confound both it and you. If, on the contrary (as I shall hope, till strong proof appear), your heart was right before God, that it was your real design to promote the glory of God, by promoting peace and love among men, let not your heart be troubled; the God whom you serve is able to deliver you. Perhaps in some things you have shown you are but a man; perhaps I myself may have a little to complain of: but oh, what a train of benefits have I received to lay in the balance against it! I bless God that ever you was born. I acknowledge His exceeding mercy in casting me into your hands. I own your generous kindness all the time we were at sea: I am indebted to you for a thousand favors here.

That I shall be laughed at for all this, I know; so was my Master.' But that I shall catch the favor of men I know not. If I do any, it is not my strength or prudence. ' No man cometh to Me, except the Father draw him.' But this I am determined, never to ' catch them with guile' -- an imputation St. Paul expresses a strong abhorrence of, as any one may observe, from the manner wherein he clears himself of that crime, which some, it seems, had accused him of to the Corinthians. Not that I am for a stern, austere manner of conversing neither. No: let all the cheerfulness of faith be there; all the joyfulness of hope; all the amiable sweetness, the winning easiness, of love. If we must have art, Hic mihi erunt artes: so soon as God shall adorn my soul with them, and without any other than these, with the power of the Holy Ghost preventing, accompanying, and following me, I know that I (that is, the grace of God which is in me) shall save both myself and those that hear me. Dear sir, continue your prayers for Your obliged and very affectionate servant in Jesus Christ. To William Wogan, Esq., In Spring Gardens, London. To Mrs. Chapman [6] SAVANNAH, March 29, 1737. True friendship is doubtless stronger than death, else yours could never have subsisted still in spite of all opposition, and even after thousands of miles are interposed between us. In the last proof you gave of it there are a few things which I think it lies on me to mention: as for the rest, my brother is the proper person to clear them up, as I suppose he has done long ago.

If the sincerity of friendship is best to be known from the painful offices, then there could not be a stronger proof of mine than that I gave you on Sunday; except that which I am going to give you now, and which you may perhaps equally misinterpret. Would you know what I dislike in your past or present behavior You have always heard my thoughts as freely as you asked them. Nay, much more freely; you know it well, and so you shall do as long as I can speak or write. In your present behavior I dislike (1) your neglect of half the public service, which no man living can compel you to; (2) your neglect of fasting, which you once knew to be an help to the mind without any prejudice to the body; (3) your neglect of almost half the opportunity of communicating which you have lately had. But these things are small in comparison of what I dislike in your past behavior. For (1) You told me over and over you had entirely conquered your inclination for Mr. Mellichamp. Yet at that very time you had not conquered it. (2) You told me frequently you had no design to marry Mr. Williamson. Yet at the very time you spoke you had the design. (3) In order to conceal both these things from me, you went through a course of deliberate dissimulation. Oh how fallen! How changed! Surely there was a time when in Miss Sophy's life there was no guile. Own these facts and own your fault, and you will be in my thoughts as if they had never been. If you are otherwise-minded, I shall still be your friend, though I cannot expect you should be mine. To Dr. Humphreys, Secretary to the S.P.G. [11] SAVANNAH, July 12, 1737.

1738 An Unexpected Return [1] COLLEGE STREET, January 2, 1738. DEAR BROTHER, -- From my soul I congratulate you upon your latest glorious treatment; nor do I less envy you. It is now that you begin to be a disciple of Christ. I have just read over the returned papers without any emotion but that of joy. Had I even resolved to have set up my test, your present trial would have broken my resolution and forced me back to America, to partake with you in your sufferings for the Gospel. Such you may most assuredly reckon, what you now labor under (I should rather say, what you now rejoice and glory in), for it is not the mixture of infirmity that can prevent God's accepting you as endured for His sake. If you have the testimony of a good conscience, your sufferings are interpretatively His, and human wisdom can never dispute you out of it. We know that worldly and even partially good men, the strangers as well as the enemies to the cross of Christ, observing some fallings in God's children, ascribe the whole of their persecutions to those only. The scandal of the cross with them is ceased, the reproach of Christ no longer subsists, the contrariety betwixt His light and darkness, betwixt His spirit and the spirit of the world is at an end, and our conformity to our persecuted Master is all resolved into want of prudence. In vain do we press them with the plain words of Scripture, all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution; the disciple is not above His Master; if they have persecuted Me they will also persecute you,' and a thousand others. Experience only can convince them that the sense of these scriptures is literal and eternal. But this I need not tell you. You know the absolute impossibility of being inwardly conformed to Christ, without this outward conformity, this badge of discipleship, those marks of Christ. You marvel not, as if some new thing happened unto you, but rejoiced in tribulation, as knowing that hereunto you are called, and can only be made perfect through these sufferings.

1. In writing and speaking, use canting language 2. Do they not frequently talk of extraordinary notices and directions to determine their actions, &c. 3. Do they not imagine all or some of them have certain divine impulses, like the divine inspiration of the Apostles 4. Do they not impose on themselves and others certain duties and works at certain times and after certain manners -- as, to fast, abstain from meats, rise at midnight, &c.--otherwise than is appointed in Scripture, or without such appointment 5. Do they not form themselves into a sect, distinguish themselves from other Christians Have not some of them set up conventicles, &c. 6. Do they not require voluntary poverty in their members 7. Do they not despise marriage To James Hutton [3] OXON, March 26, 1738. Enclosed I send the key of my brother's bureau. [Probably at James Hurtoh's house, near Temple Bar.] In one of the drawers are all my papers. Among them are several relating to Captain Watson. [Captain Watson, who owned an estate adjoining the Cowpen, four miles away, was confined for nearly three years in Savannah. Wesley was his friend and helper. After he was set at liberty, Wesley admitted him to Holy Communion, 'being fully satisfied of his integrity as well as understanding.' See Journal, i. 397-9; and Diary, 186, 237, 242, 320.] Out of these pray take Jo. Coates' affidavit, and the certificates of Elisha Foster, Thomas Salter, and a third signed by about forty persons concerning Mr. Watson's sound understanding (not that signed by me). These, and no more, when you have taken attested copies of them, deliver as soon as possible to Mrs. Watson. Lose not an hour. Mr. Campbell [Campbell had possibly returned from Savannah. See Journal, i. 188d 319d; viii. 3o9.] will tell you where she lives, whom I wish you would bring acquainted with Mr. Fox. [Journal, i. 448.] Dear Jemmy, adieu. Let me know by next post whether you can and will receive the money, and inquire when Mr. O. goes. I cannot write to him till I hear from you. I have not trusted myself to say any more. Sunday night. To his Brother Charles [4] OXON, April 28, 1738.

COLEN, [Cologne.] June 28, 1738. DEAR BROTHER, -- You will send my mother, wherever she is, her letter by the first opportunity. By the conversation I have had with the Brethren that journey with us, as well as with those at Ysselstein and at Amsterdam, I find the judgment of their Church is: (1) That we ought to distinguish carefully, both in thinking and speaking, between faith (absolutely speaking), which is one thing; justifying or saving faith, which is a second thing (and ought to be called, not faith absolutely, but always justifying or saving faith); the assurance of faith, where we know and feel that we are justified; and the being born again, which they say is a fourth thing, and often distant in time (as well as in the notion of it) from all the rest. (2) That a man may have, and frequently has, justifying faith before he has the assurance that he is justified. My dear brother, pray (you and all the brethren) for us, that all things may work together for our good, and that we may be more and more rooted in faith, joyful through hope, and grounded in charity. Adieu. To his Mother COLEN, June 28, 1738.

We are here compassed about with a cloud of witnesses that the Ancient of Days waxeth not old; that His arm is not shortened, but still worketh mightily in and for those that believe. All of these are living proofs that Christianity, as its Author, is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; that the same gifts are still given unto men, the same holiness and happiness, the same freedom from sin, the same peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. These likewise bear witness with one accord that there is but one way under heaven given to men of attaining to a fellowship in these great and precious promises--namely, faith in Him who loved us and gave Himself for us, and bare our sins in His own body upon the tree; and also that ‘whosoever seeketh this findeth,’ so he seek it humbly, earnestly, and perseveringly, absolutely renouncing all his own righteousness as well as his own works, and coming to Christ as poor, miserable, and naked! My dear friends, be lowly, be serious, be watchful. Let not any pretence to mental make you slack in vocal prayer. Be good stewards of the manifold grace of God. And the God of peace and love be with you even unto the end! Be not forgetful of praying much for Your weak brother in Christ. To Arthur Bedford [11] LONDON, September 28, 1738. REVEREND SIR, -- 1. A few days ago I met with a sermon of yours, said to be written against me. It is entitled The Doctrine of Assurance. When I first read those three propositions there laid down, -- ‘(1) that an assurance of salvation is not of the essence of faith; (2) that a true believer may wait long before he hath it; and (3) that, after he hath it, it may be weakened and intermitted by many distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions,’ -- I thought there was nothing herein but what I both believed and preached. But in going on I was convinced of the contrary; and saw clearly that, by this one phrase, ‘assurance of salvation,’ we meant entirely different things: you understanding thereby ‘an assurance that we shall persevere in a state of salvation’; whereas I mean no more by that term than ‘an assurance that we are now in such a state.’

2. How easily, then, might a short question have prevented this whole dispute and saved you the trouble of a mere ignoratio denchi for almost forty pages together! As to the assurance you speak of, neither my brother, nor I, nor any of our friends that I know of, hold it; no, nor the Moravian Church, whose present judgment I have had better opportunity to know than the author of what is called your Catechism. I dare not affirm so much of this assurance as that ‘it is given to very few’; for I believe it is given to none at all. I find it not in the Book of God. Yea, I take it to be utterly contrary thereto, as implying the impossibility of falling from grace; from asserting which fatal doctrine I trust the God whom I serve will always deliver me. 3. That assurance of which alone I speak, I should not choose to call an assurance of salvation, but rather (with the Scriptures) the assurance of faith. And even this I believe is not of the essence of faith, but a distinct gift of the Holy Ghost, whereby God shines upon His own work and shows us that we are justified through faith in Christ. If any one chooses to transpose the words, and to term this, instead of the assurance of faith, the faith of assurance, I should not contend with him for a phrase: though I think the scriptural words are always the best; and in this case particularly, because otherwise we may seem to make two faiths, whereas St. Paul knew but of one.

Are you not of a close, dark, reserved temper and behavior Is not the spirit of secrecy the spirit of your community Have you that childlike openness, frankness, and plainness of speech so manifest to all in the Apostles and first Christians To Benjamin Ingham [13] OXON, October 13, 1758.

Some measure of this faith, which bringeth salvation or victory over sin, and which implies peace and trust in God through Christ, I now enjoy by His free mercy; though in very deed it is in me but as a grain of mustard-seed: for the pfa pste -- the seal of the Spirit, the love of God shed abroad in my heart, and producing joy in the Holy Ghost, ' joy which no man taketh away, joy unspeakable and full of glory,'--this witness of the Spirit I have not; but I patiently wait for it. I know many who have already received it--more than one or two in the very hour we were praying for it. And, having seen and spoken with a cloud of witnesses abroad as well as in my own country, I cannot doubt but that believers who wait and pray for it will find these scriptures fulfilled in themselves. My hope is that they will be fulfilled in me: I build on Christ, the Rock of Ages; on His sure mercies described in His Word; and on His promises, all which I know are yea and amen. Those who have not yet received joy in the Holy Ghost, the love of God, and the plerophory of faith (any or all of which I take to be the witness of the Spirit with our spirit that we are the sons of God), I believe to be Christians in that imperfect sense wherein I may call myself such; and I exhort them to pray that God would give them also ‘to rejoice in hope of the glory of God,’ and to feel ‘His love shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto them.’

On men I build not: neither on Matilda Chipman's word, [Apparently the woman who dreamt that a ball of fire fell upon her, and burst and fired her soul. See Priestley's Letters, pp. 88-90.] whom I have not talked with five minutes in my life; nor on anything peculiar in the weak, well-meant relation of William Hervey, [A younger brother of the Rev. James Hervey, who in June 1737 was looking out for a trade and a master to set yourself to' in London. Hervey spent the winter of 1751-2 in Miles Lane, London, with William, who was with his brother when he died in 1758. See Tyerman's Oxford Methodists, pp. 213, 26o, 322-3; and letter of March 2o, 1739, to James Hervey.] who yet is a serious, humble-acting Christian. But have you been building on these Yes; I find them more or less in almost every letter you have written on the subject. Yet, were all that has been said on ‘visions, dreams, and balls of fire’ to be fairly proposed in syllogisms, I believe it would not prove a jot more on one than on the other side of the question. O brother, would to God you would leave disputing concerning the things which you know not (if, indeed, you know them not), and beg of God to fill up what is yet wanting in you! Why should not you also seek till you receive ‘that peace of God which passeth all understanding’ Who shall hinder you, notwithstanding the manifold temptations, from rejoicing ' with joy unspeakable, by reason of glory' Amen, Lord Jesus! -May you and all who are near of kin to you (if you have it not already) feel His love shed abroad in your heart by His Spirit which dwelleth in you, and be sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of your inheritance. -- I am Yours and my sister's most affectionate Brother. To Connt Zinzendorf LONDON, October 30, 1738.

My brother, suffer me to speak a little more: if as a fool, then as a fool bear with me. I believe you don't think I am (whatever I was) bigoted either to the Ancient Church or the Church of England. But have a care of bending the bow too much the other way. The National Church, to which we belong, may doubtless claim some, though not an implicit, obedience from us. And the Primitive Church may, thus far at least, be reverenced as faithfully delivering down for two or three hundred years the discipline which they received from the Apostles, and the[Apostles] from Christ. And I doubt....... were among them who [Letter torn.] ....... To his Brother Samuel OXON, November 30, 1738. I believe every Christian who has not yet received it should pray for the witness of God's Spirit with his spirit that he is a child of God. In being a child of God, the pardon of his sins is included; therefore I believe the Spirit of God will witness this also. That this witness is from God, the very terms imply; and this witness I believe is necessary for my salvation. How far invincible ignorance may excuse others I know not. But this, you say, is delusive and dangerous, because it encourages and abets idle visions and dreams. It encourages, true--accidentally, but not essentially. And that it does this accidentally, or that weak minds may pervert it to an idle use, is no objection against it; for so they may pervert every truth in the oracles of God, more especially that dangerous doctrine of Joel cited by St. Peter: ‘It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.’ Such visions, indeed, as you mention are given up: does it follow that visions and dreams in general ‘are bad branches of a bad root’ God forbid I This would prove more than you desire. To James Hutton [23] I am to thank somebody (I suppose my brother James) for some very good tea. OXON, December 1, 1738.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- ... I think Bishop Bull's sermon on the Witness of the Spirit (against the Witness of the Spirit it should rather be entitled) is full of gross perversions of Scripture and manifest contradictions both to Scripture and experience. I find more persons day by day who experience a clear evidence of their being in a state of salvation. But I never said this continues equally clear in all as long as they continue in a state of salvation. Some, indeed, have testified, and the whole tenor of their life made their testimony unexceptionable, that from that hour they have felt no agonies at all, no anxious fears, no sense of dereliction. Others have. But I much fear we begin our dispute at the wrong end. I fear you dissent from the fundamental Articles of the Church of England. I know Bishop Bull does. I doubt you do not hold justification by faith alone. If not, neither do you hold what our Articles teach concerning the extent and guilt of original sin; neither do you feel yourself a lost sinner: and if we begin not here, we are building on the sand. Oh may the God of love, if my sister or you are otherwise-minded, reveal even this unto you. Your affectionate Brother. To George Whitefield [3] LONDON, February 26, 1739.

At six I expounded at Mrs. Ford's; as I designed to do at Mrs. Compton's at seven. But Mr. Washington was got thither before me, and just beginning to read Bishop Bull against the Witness of the Spirit. He told me he was authorized by the minister of the parish so to do. I advised all that valued their souls to go away; and, perceiving it to be the less evil of the two, that they who remained might not be. perverted, I entered directly into the controversy, touching both the cause and the fruits of justification. In the midst of the dispute James Mears's wife began to be in pain. I prayed with her a little when Mr. Washington was gone; and then (having comforted the rest as I was enabled) we went down to Sister Thomas's. In the way Mrs. Mears's pains so increased that she could not avoid crying out aloud in the street. With much difficulty we got her to Mrs. Shrieve's (where also Mr. Washington had been before us). We made our request known to God, and He heard us and sent her deliverance in the same hour. There was great power among us, and her husband also was set at liberty. Soon after, I felt such a damp strike into my soul (and so did Mrs. Compton and several others) as I do not remember to have ever found before. I believed the enemy was near us. We immediately cried to our Lord to stir up His power and come and help us. Presently Mrs. Shrieve fell into a strange agony both of body and mind; her teeth gnashed together; her knees smote each other; and her whole body trembled exceedingly. We prayed on, and within an hour the storm ceased. She now enjoys a sweet calm, having remission of sins, and knowing that her Redeemer liveth.

To this hour you have pursued an ignoratio elenchi. Your assurance and mine are as different as light and darkness. I mean an assurance that I am now in a state of salvation; you an assurance that I shall persevere therein. The very definition of the term cuts off your second and third observation. As to the first, I would take notice: (1) No kind of assurance (that I know), or of faith, or repentance, is essential to their salvation who die infants. (2) I believe God is ready to give all true penitents who fly to His free grace in Christ a fuller sense of pardon than they had before they fell. I know this to be true of several; whether these are exempt cases, I know not. (3) Persons that were of a melancholy and gloomy constitution, even to some degree of madness, I have known in a moment (let it be called a miracle, I quarrel not) brought into a state of firm, lasting peace and joy.

DEAR JEMMY, -- I want nothing of this world. Pray give the guinea to my brother Charles for my sister Kezzy. [Kezia, the youngest sister of the Wesleys. See letter of Aug. 18, 1743.] God will reward our brother Thomas [Probably Thomas Wilson. See letter of April 9 to his brother Charles.] better than with my thanks. I am, you may believe, much straitened for time. Therefore I can write but little. And neither of our brethren here has the pen of a ready writer. [See Journal, ii. 166n.] Why does not Charles Metcalf come I wish you would send me those two letters wrote to me at Oxford by Brother Bray, and those two by our brother Fish [See William Fish's letter (Journal, ii. 108, 111n). He lived in London. C. Wesley's Journal, i. 149, says that Fish was ‘very zealous for lay-preaching.’ C. Wesley and Whitefield declared against it.] in November and December last. They are in my great box at Mr. Bray’s. Can't you get from our brother Shaw [John Shaw. On June 6, 1739, Charles Wesley says: ‘At the Society in the evening Shaw pleaded for his spirit of prophecy .... Fish said he looked upon me as delivered over to Satan, &c.’ On June 13, when John Wesley returned, the French prophetess was discussed. ‘All agreed to disown her. Brother Hall proposed expelling Shaw and Wolf. We consented nem. con. that their names should be erased out of the Society book because they disowned themselves members of the Church of England.’] and send me the Herinhut Experiences and Transcript of Brother Hopsoh's Letters They would be very useful here. Don't neglect or delay. Adieu. What is the matter with our sisters My brother Charles complains of them. To James Hutton [8] BRISTOL, April 9, 1739. MY DEAR BRETEREN, -- On Sunday evening, the 1st instant, I began to expound at Nicholas Street Society our Lord's Sermon on the Mount. The room, passage, and staircase were filled with attentive hearers. On Monday I talked with several in private, to try what manner of spirit they were of; and at four in the afternoon went to a brickyard, [For a description of this noted place, see Journal, ii. 172n.] adjoining to the city, where I had an opportunity of preaching the gospel of the kingdom (from a little eminence) to three or four thousand people.

Wednesday, 2nd, another mourner received comfort at Newgate. We afterwards went to a neighboring house, to read a letter wrote against me as a false teacher for opposing Predestination. A rigid asserter of it was present when a young woman came in (who had received remission of sins) all in tears and in deep anguish of spirit. She said she had been in torment all night by reasoning, and verily believed the devil had possession of her again. In the midst of our prayers she cried out, ‘He is gone, he is gone: I again rejoice in God my Savior.’ Just as we rose from giving thanks, another young woman reeled four or five steps and then dropped down. We prayed with her; she is now in deep poverty of spirit, groaning day and night for a new heart.

A very late instance of this I will give you. While we were praying at a Society here, on Tuesday the 1st instant, the power of God (so I call it) came so mightily among us that one, and another, and another fell down as thunder-struck. In that hour many that were in deep anguish of spirit were all filled with peace and joy. Ten persons, till then in sin, doubt, and fear, found such a change that sin had no more dominion over them; and, instead of the spirit of fear, they are now filled with that of love and joy and a sound mind. A Quaker who stood by was very angry at them, and was biting his lips and knitting his brows, when the Spirit of God came upon him also, so that he fell down as one dead. We prayed over him, and he soon lifted up his head with joy and joined with us in thanksgiving.

We immediately began praying for him, and then for all the despisers. As we returned, they hollowed and hissed us along the streets; but when any of them asked, ‘Which is he’ and I answered, ‘I am he,’ they were immediately silent. Ten or twelve fine ladies followed me into the passage of Richard Merchant's [See letter of May 14.] house. I turned back to them, and told them I supposed what they wanted was to look at me, which they were very welcome to do. Perceiving them then to be more serious, I added: ‘I do not expect the rich of this world to hear me; for I speak plain truth -- a thing you know little of, and do not desire to know.’ A few words more passed between us, and, I hope, not in vain. Wednesday, 6th, two men and one woman were baptized. [Diary: ‘10.45 Newgate, three christened; ... 9.45 [p.m.] with Mrs. Cooper, she spoke; 11 at Mr. Labbe's! 11 supper; 12’ (Journal, ii. 213).] About two thousand five hundred were at Baptist Mills, to whom I explained the 9th of St. John. In the evening, after our meeting in Baldwin Street, I went (in obedience to God's command by lot) to the house of Mrs. Cooper, the supposed prophetess. Her agitations were nothing near so violent as those of Mary Piewit are. [See Journal, ii. 136n.] She prayed awhile (as under the hand of God), and then spoke to me for above half an hour. What spirit she spoke by I know not. The words were good. Some of them were these: ‘Thou art yet in darkness. But yet a little while and I will rend the veil, and thou shalt see the King in His beauty.’ I felt no power while she spoke. Appearances are against her; but I judge nothing before the time.

5. Secondly, with regard to that faith through which we are saved, I have heard many of you say, ‘A man may have justifying faith and not know it.’ Others of you, who are now in England (particularly Mr. Molther), I have heard affirm [In the Preface to the Second Journal the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake. [See Journal, i. 430. Bhier, in a letter to Wesley, written several years later, denied that Molther ever held the opinions imputed to him (Moore's Wesley, i. 491n).]]* that ‘there is no such thing as weak faith; that there are no degrees in faith; that there is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt; that there is no justifying faith without the plerophory of faith, the clear, abiding witness of the Spirit; that there is no justifying faith where there is not, in the full, proper sense, a new heart; and that those who have not these two gifts are only awakened, not justified.’ 6. Thirdly, as to the way to faith, here are many among us whom your brethren have advised (what it is not to be supposed they would as yet speak to me, or in their public preaching) [The substance of the answer to this and the following paragraphs is: (I) That none ought to communicate till he has faith -- that is, a sure trust in the mercy of God through Christ. This is granting the charge. (2) That ‘if the Methodists hold this sacrament is a means of getting faith, they must act according to their persuasion.’ We do hold it, and know it to be so to many of those who are previously convinced of sin.]* not to use those ordinances which our Church terms means of grace till they have such a faith as implies a clean heart and excludes all possibility of doubting. They have advised them, till then, not to search the Scriptures, not to pray, not to communicate; and have often affirmed that to do these things is seeking salvation by works, and that, till these works are laid aside, no man can receive faith: for ‘no man’ (say they) ‘can do these things without trusting in them; if he does not trust in them, why does he do them’

You say, farther, ‘that the children at Bristol are clothed as well as taught.’ I am sorry for it; for the cloth is not paid for yet, and was bought without my consent or knowledge. ‘But those of Kingswood have been neglected.’ This is not so, notwithstanding the heavy debt which lay upon it. One master and one mistress have been in the house ever since it has been capable of receiving them; a second master was placed there some months since; and I have long been seeking for two proper mistresses: so that as much has been done, as matters stand, if not more, than I can answer to God and man. Well, but ‘you sent down Brother Cennick to be schoolmaster, whom I have turned out.' What, from being schoolmaster You know he never was so at all. You know he now neither designs nor desires it. Hitherto, then, there is no ground for the heavy charge of ‘perverting your design for the poor colliers.’ Two years since, your design was to build them a school, that their children also might be taught to fear the Lord. To this end you collected some money more than once; how much I cannot say, till I have my papers. But this I know, it was not near one half of what has been expended on the work. This design you then recommended to me, and I pursued it with all my might, through such a train of difficulties as (I will be bold to say) you have not yet met with in your life. For many months I collected money wherever I was: in Kingswood for that house only; in Bristol for the schoolhouse to be built there; in other places generally for Bath. In June 1739, being able to procure none any other way, I bought a little piece of ground and began building thereon, though I had not then a quarter of the money requisite to finish. However, taking all the debt upon myself, the creditors were willing to stay: and then it was that I took possession of it in my own name -- viz. when the foundation was laid; and from that time to this only I immediately made my will, fixing my brother and you to succeed me therein.

2. To mercy. For where is your mercy in separating chief friends, in alluring from us to yourselves by oily words those who have grown up with us from the beginning, who have with us borne the burthen and heat of the day, and were till lately determined to live and die with us I mean (to mention no more) Mr. Gambold, Hutchings, Kinchin, and my brother Hall. What use are these of to you now you have them although, indeed, they are utterly useless to us. What possible end could the bereaving us of them answer, except it were this -- that, by necessitating us to undergo labours which our bodies could not bear, you might hasten our return to Him that sent us For my part, I cannot but declare my sense to be this--that, if I had now gone hence, I should have fallen in my uprightness, but my blood would God have required at your hands. 3. As to truth. How little have you regarded that golden rule ‘Let love be without dissimulation’! How much, very much, of reserve, darkness, and evasion has been in all your proceedings! so much that in very deed I know not now where to have you or how to understand what you say. I know not whether you receive the gospel as the adequate rule either of faith or practice. The good God have mercy upon you if you do or if you do not. To Him I commend my cause, and remain Your sincere friend. To Mr. James Hutton, Bookseller, In Little Wild Street, Near Clare Market, London. To a Clergyman [7] Sunday Morning, [ about 1741.] REVEREND SIR, -- A flying report which I heard last night occasions you this trouble. That I may not put you to any inconvenience (which I should be sorry to do; it would not be doing as I would be done to), I beg to know whether you have any scruples as to administering the Lord's Supper to, Reverend sir, Your brother and servant.

I am not surprised at all that upon such evidence you should advance such assertions. But I really am at what you afterwards assert as upon your own personal knowledge -- viz. that two Bills of Indictment being preferred against John Wesley and sent to the Grand Jury of Savannah (Bills of Indictment sent to a Grand Jury! What kind of proceeding is this), this deponent and the rest of the Grand Jury did UNANIMOUSLY agree to the said Bills. How dare you, sir, assert so gross a falsehood Have you no regard either for your reputation or your soul Do you think there is no God to judge the earth You know, you must know, how large a part of that Grand Jury did absolutely disagree to every Bill of the two presentments; and gave those reasons of their disagreement to the Trustees, which neither you nor any man has yet chose to answer. You assert, farther, that I was bailed by two freeholders of Savannah for my appearance at the then next Sessions. Here I charge you with a second gross, willful falsehood. You know I never was bailed at all. If I was, name the men (Henry Lloyd is ready to confront you) or produce an attested copy of the Record of Court. You assert, thirdly, that a little before the Sessions came on (viz. the next Sessions after the Bills were found) I deserted my bail. Here is another gross, willful, palpable untruth. For (1) no bail was ever given; (2) I appeared at seven Sessions successively after those Bills were found -- viz. on Thursday, Sept. 1, or Friday, Sept. 2; at three other Sessions held in September and October; on Thursday, Nov. 22 [3]; and lastly, on Thursday, Nov. 22 [24]. Your smaller falsehoods--as that I quitted the colony about the middle of the night, that from Purrysburg to Charlestown is about two hundred miles (you should have said about ninety), that I walked on foot from thence to Charlestown -- I pass over as not material. You, lastly, assert that the Justices threatened to prosecute and imprison my bail for such my desertion, who were in the utmost confusion concerning the same; but by the interposition of this deponent and several others on behalf of the said bail, and to prevent destruction to their several families, the Justices respited their recognizances during pleasure.

This is altogether fit to crown the whole. Now, sir, as you know in your own soul that every word of this is pure invention, without one grain of truth from the beginning to the end, what amends can you ever make, either to God, or to me, or to the world Into what a dreadful dilemma have you here brought yourself! You must openly retract an open slander, or you must wade through thick and thin to support it; till that God, to whom I appeal, shall maintain His own cause and sweep you away from the earth. -- I am, sir, Your friend. N.B. -- This was written July 16, but I had not leisure to transcribe it before August 3, 1742. [Wesley left Bristol on July 18 and found when he got to London that his mother was dying. The letter was transcribed two days after her funeral. It appeared in the Weekly History for Aug. 14, 1742.] To Howell Harris LONDON, August 6, 1742. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I must write; though where my letter will find you, that I know not, only that it will be under the shadow of the Almighty -- yea, in the arms of Him that loveth you. Now, let Him cover your head in the day of battle! Let His faithfulness and truth be thy shield and buckler! Let Him comfort thy heart, and, after thou hast suffered awhile, make thee perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle thee!

I am glad you mentioned the volume of Bishop Bull, [The Huttons had evidently lent Bishop Bull's Teachings of the Spirit to Wesley. See letter of Jan. 1739, and his reference (Journal, ii. 144d) on Feb. 22 - ‘10.30 at James Hutton’s read Bishop Bull upon the teachings of the Spirit.’] for I had quite forgot whose it was. I will look for it, and send it. I desire the continuance of yours and Mr. Hutton’s prayers. Your obliged and affectionate servant. To Mrs. Hutton, In College Street, Westminster. To the Countess of Huntingdon [8] OXFORD, August 1744. MADAM, -- It has been a common remark for many years that poetry, which might answer the noblest purposes, has been prostituted to the vilest, even to confound the distinctions between virtue and vice, good and evil; and that to such a degree that, among the numerous poems now extant in our language, there is an exceeding small proportion which does not more or less fall under this heavy censure. So that a great difficulty lies on those who are not willing, on the one hand, to be deprived of an elegant amusement; nor, on the other, to purchase it at the hazard of innocence or virtue. Hence it is that many have placed a chaste collection of English poems among the chief desiderata of this age. Your mentioning this a year or two ago, and expressing a desire to see such a collection, determined me not to delay the design I had long had of attempting something in this kind. I therefore revised all the English poems I knew, and selected what appeared most valuable in them. Only Spenser’s Works I was constrained to omit, because scarce intelligible to the generality of modern readers.

I grant it. I grant also, that justification sometimes means a state of acceptance with God. But all this does not in the least affect my assertion, that ‘that justification which is spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and by our Church in the Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Articles, is not our acquittal at the last day, but the present remission of our sins.’ You add, ‘You write in other places so variously about this matter, that I despair to find any consistency. Once you held “a degree of justifying faith short of the full assurance of faith, theabiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him;” and yet you afterwards “warned all not to think they were justified before they had a clear assurance, that God had forgiven their sins.” What difference there is between this clearassurance, and the former full assurance and clear perception, Iknow not.’ (Page 40.) Let us go on step by step, and you will know. ‘Once you held “adegree of justifying faith, short of the full assurance of faith, theabiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christabideth in him.”’ And so I hold still, and have done for some years. ‘And yet you afterwards warned all not to think they werejustified before they had a clear assurance that God had forgiventheir sins.’ I did so. ‘What difference there is between this clear assurance, and that full assurance and clear perception, I knownot.’ Sir, I will tell you. The one is an assurance that my sins areforgiven, clear at first, but soon clouded with doubt or fear. Theother is such a plerophory or full assurance that I am forgiven, andso clear a perception that Christ abideth in me, as utterly excludesall doubt and fear, and leaves them no place, no, not for an hour. So that the difference between them is as great as the differencebetween the light of the morning and that of the midday sun.

‘I was a little surprised, in going out of the room, at one who catched hold of me, and said abruptly, “I must speak with you, and will. I have sinned against light and against love.” (N. B. She was soon after, if not at that very time, a common prostitute.) “I have sinned beyond forgiveness. I have been cursing you in my heart, and blaspheming God, ever since I came here. I am damned: I know it: I feel it: I am in hell: I have hell in my heart.” I desired two or three who had confidence in God, to join in crying to him on her behalf. Immediately that horrible dread was taken away, and she began to see some dawnings of hope.’ (ii. 333.) ‘The attention of all was soon fixed on poor Lucretia Smith. One so violently and variously torn of the evil one did I never see before. Sometimes she laughed till almost strangled; and then broke out into cursing and blaspheming; then stamped, and struggled with incredible strength, so that four or five could scarce hold her; then cried out, ‘O eternity, eternity! O that I had no soul! O that I had never been born!” At last she faintly called on Christ to help her; and the violence of her pangs ceased.’ (ii. 347.) It should be remembered, that from that time to this, her conversation has been as becometh the gospel. ‘Thursday, December 25, I met with such a case as I do not remember either to have known or heard of before: Lucretia Smith (the same person), after many years’ mourning, (long before she heard of us,) was filled with peace and joy in believing. In the midst of this, without any discernible cause, such a cloud suddenly overwhelmed her, that she could not believe her sins were ever forgiven at all, nor that there was any such thing as forgiveness of sins. She could not believe that the Scriptures were true; that there was any heaven, or hell, or angel, or spirit, or any God. One more I have since found in the same state: But observe, neither of these continued therein; nor did I ever know one that did. So sure it is that all faith is the gift of God, which the moment he withdraws, the evil heart of unbelief will poison the whole soul.’ (ii. 410.)

To conclude this head: You roundly affirm, once for all, ‘The grossest corruptions have ever followed the spreading of this tenet. The greatest heats and animosities have been raised thereby. The wildest errors have been thus occasioned. And in proportion to its getting ground, it has never failed to perplex the weak, to harden the wicked, and to please the profane. Your Journal is a proof that these terrible consequences have of late prevailed, perhaps more than ever.’ (Page 51.) Suppose that Journal gives a true account of facts, (which you seem not to deny,) could you find there no other fruits of my preaching, than these terrible ones you here mention O who so blind, as he that will not see! [Matthew Henry on Jer. xx. See Swift's Polite Conversation, dial. 3.] 18. But that we may not still talk at large, let us bring this question into as narrow a compass as possible. Let us go no farther as to time, than seven years last past; as to place, than London and the parts adjoining; as to persons, than you and me, Thomas Church preaching one doctrine, John Wesley the other. Now then, let us consider with meekness and fear, what have been the consequences of each doctrine. You have preached justification by faith and works, at Battersea, and St. Ann's, Westminster; while I preached justification by faith alone, near Moorfields, and at Short's Gardens. I beseech you then to consider, in the secret of your heart, how many sinners have you converted to God By their fruits we shall know them. This is a plain rule. By this test let them be tried. How many outwardly and habitually wicked men have you brought to uniform habits of outward holiness It is an awful thought! Can you instance in a hundred in fifty in twenty in ten If not, take heed unto yourself and to your doctrine. It cannot be that both are right before God.

You relate what follows as a third ‘very extraordinary instance of enthusiasm:’ (Remarks, p. 65): ‘Tuesday, Feb. 17. I left London. In the afternoon, I reached Oxford; and leaving my horse there, (for he was tired, and the horse-road exceeding bad, and my business admitted of no delay,) set out on foot for Stanton-Harcourt. The night overtook me in about an hour, accompanied with heavy rain. Being wet and weary, and not well knowing my way, I could not help saying in my heart, (though ashamed of my want of resignation to God’s will,) “O that thou wouldest stay the bottles of heaven! or at least give me light, or an honest guide, or some help in the manner thou knowest.” Presently the rain ceased, the moon broke out, and a friendly man overtook me, who set me on his own horse, and walked by my side, till we came to Mr. Gambold’s door.’ (Journal, ii. 425-6.) Here you remark, ‘If you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing in it worthy of being related.’ It may be so; let it pass then as a trifle not worth relating: But still it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look on it as miraculous. I do not myself look upon it as such; but as a signal instance of God's particular providence over all those who call upon him.

12. You add, ‘I shall give but one account more, and this is what you give of yourself.’ (Remarks, p. 72.) The sum whereof is, ‘At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease.’ I did so. I assert the fact still. ‘Now, if these,’ you say, ‘are not miraculous cures, all this is rank enthusiasm.’ I will put your argument in form: -- He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not so is a rank enthusiast: But you believe those to be miraculous cures which are not so: Therefore, you are a rank enthusiast. Before I answer, I must know what you mean by miraculous. If you term everything so, which is not strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, then I deny the latter part of the minor proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove the effects in question are strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is nothing worth. You conclude this head with, ‘Can you work miracles All your present pretences to the Spirit, till they are proved by miracles, cannot be excused, or acquitted from enthusiasm.’ (Page 73.) My short answer is this: I pretend to the Spirit just so far as is essential to a state of salvation. And cannot I be acquitted from enthusiasm till I prove by miracles that I am in a state of salvation 13. We now draw to a period: ‘The consequences of Methodism,’ you say, that is, of our preaching this doctrine, ‘which have hitherto appeared, are bad enough to induce you to leave it. It has, in fact, introduced many disorders; enthusiasm, Antinomianism, Calvinism, a neglect and contempt of God’s ordinances, and almost all other duties.’ (Page 75.)

7. ‘Infallible testimony’ was your word, not mine: I never use it; I do not like it. But I did not object to your using that phrase, because I would not fight about words. If, then, the question be repeated, ‘In what sense is that attestation of the Spirit infallible’ any one has my free leave to answer, In no sense at all. And yet, though I allow that some may fancy they have it when in truth they have it not, I cannot allow that any fancy they have it not at the time when they really have. I know no instance of this. When they have this faith, they cannot possibly doubt of their having it; although it is very possible, when they have it not, they may doubt whether ever they had it or no. This [See A Short Account of the Death of Mrs. Hannah Richardson, by Charles Wesley, 1741; or Jackson's Charles Wesley, i. 275-6.] was Hannah Richardson's case; and it is more or less the case with many of the children of God. 8. That logical evidence that we are the children of God I do not either exclude or despise. But it is far different from the direct witness of the Spirit: of which, I believe, St. Paul speaks in his Epistle to the Romans; and which, I doubt not, is given to many thousand souls who never saw my face. But I spoke only of those I personally knew, concerning whom, indeed, I find my transcriber has made a violent mistake, writing 13,000 instead of 1,300: I might add, those whom I also have known by their writings. But I cannot lay so much stress on their evidence. I cannot have so full and certain a knowledge of a writer as of one I talk with face to face; and therefore I think the experiences of this kind are not to be compared with those of the other.

5. You next ‘take the pains to lay before the reader an instance or two of confusion, &c.’ The first I read thus: -- ‘While we were at the room, Mrs. Jones, sitting at home, took the Bible to read; but on a sudden threw it away, saying, “I am good enough; I will never read or pray more.” She was in the same mind when I came, often repeating, “I used to think I was full of sin and that I sinned in everything I did; but now I know better: I am a good Christian; I never did any harm in my life; I don’t desire to be any better than I am.” She spoke many things to the same effect, plainly showing that the spirit of pride and of lies had the full dominion over her. I asked, “Do you desire to be healed” She said, “I am whole.”“But do you desire to be saved” She replied, “I am saved; I ail nothing; I am happy.” ‘This is one of the fruits of the present salvation and sinless perfection taught by you among the weak and ignorant.’ (Page 11.) I should wonder if the scarecrow of Sinless Perfection was not brought in some way or other. But to the point: You here repeat a relation as from me, and that ‘in confirmation,’ you say, ‘of your own veracity,’ and yet leave out both the beginning of that relation, part of the middle, and the end of it. I begin thus: ‘Sun. 11. -- I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil’ (Journal, ii. 415). These words, of all others, should not have been left out, being a key to all that follows. In the middle of the relation, immediately after the words ‘I am happy,’ I add, ‘Yet it was easy to discern she was in the most violent agony both of body and mind; sweating exceedingly, notwithstanding the severe frost, and not continuing in the same posture a moment,’ -- a plain proof that this was no instance of presumption, nor a natural fruit of any teaching whatever.

It ends thus: ‘About a quarter before six the next morning, after lying quiet awhile, she broke out, “Peace be unto thee” (her husband); “peace be unto this house! The peace of God is come to my soul. I know that my Redeemer liveth.” And for several days her mouth was filled with His praise and her “talk was wholly of His wondrous works.”’ Had not these words been left out, neither could this have passed for an instance of despair. Though still I do not know but it might have stood for an instance of confusion, &c. I must not forget that this was cited at first as a proof of my enthusiasm; as an instance of a private revelation, ‘which,’ you say, ‘I seem to pay great credit to--representing the conjectures of a woman, whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophecy!’ (Remarks, p. 64). I answered: ‘Descant, sir, as you please on this enthusiasm; on the credit I paid to this private revelation; and my representing the conjectures of this brain-sick woman as owing to a miraculous power of the Spirit of prophecy: and when you have done, I will desire you to read the passage once more; where you will find my express words are, introducing this account: “Sun. 11. -- I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil.” Such was the credit I paid to this revelation! All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God is, the enabling her to strive against the power of the devil and at length restoring peace to her soul.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 7.] I was in hopes you had done with this instance. But I am disappointed; for in your second letter I read thus: -- ‘The instances of enthusiasm and presumption which your last Journal had furnished me with remain now to be reviewed. The first was of a private revelation, which you appeared to pay great credit to. You had represented everything the woman had spoke in her agony as coming to pass.’ (Second Letter, p. 130.) But I had not represented anything she spoke then, whether it came to pass or no, as coming from the Spirit of God, but from the devil.

You remark: (6) ‘He is very liable to err, not considering things coolly and carefully.’ I answered: ‘So indeed I am. I find it every day more and more. But I do not yet find that this is owing to my want of “considering things coolly and carefully.” Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take. Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants!’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, acct. III 5.] You reply, ‘Your private life I have nothing to do with’; and then enlarge on my ‘method of consulting Scripture’ and of using lots, of both which by-and-by. But meantime observe this does not affect the question; for I neither cast lots, nor use that method at all, till I have considered things with all the care I can. So that, be this right or wrong, it is no manner of proof that I do not ‘carefully consider every step I take.’ But how little did I profit by begging your excuse, suppose I had spoken a word unguardedly! O sir, you put me in mind of him who said, ‘I know not how to show mercy!’ You have need never to fight but when you are sure to conquer, seeing you are resolved neither to give nor take quarter. You remark: (7) ‘He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it--the direction of God’s Spirit.’ I answered: ‘I am very difficult to be convinced by dry blows or hard names, but not by reason or argument. At least, that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention; for I claim no other direction of God's Spirit than is common to all believers.’ You reply: (1) ‘I fear this will not be easily reconcilable to your past presences and behavior’ (page 124). I believe it will; in particular to what I speak of the light I received from God in that important affair (Journal, i. 327). But as to the directions in general of the Spirit of God, we very probably differ in this: you apprehend those directions to be extraordinary which I suppose to be common to all believers.

8. You remarked, ‘It will be difficult to persuade any sober person that there is anything supernatural in these disorders’ (Remarks, pp. 68-9). The remainder of that paragraph I abridged thus: You attempt to account for those fits, by ‘obstructions or irregularities of the blood and spirits; hysterical disorders; watchings, fastings, closeness of rooms, great crowds, violent heat’; and lastly by ‘terrors, perplexities, and doubts in weak and well meaning men; which’ you think, ‘in many of the cases before us, have quite overset their understandings’ (page 69). I answered, ‘As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go.’ (Let it be supposed to have some influence in some cases; perhaps fully to account for one in a thousand.) ‘But I require proof of the last way whereby you would account for these disorders.’ Why, ‘the instances,’ you say, ‘of religious madness have much increased since you began to disturb the world.’ I doubt the fact. You reply, ‘This no way disproves it’ (Second Letter, p. 137). Yes, it does, till you produce some proof. For a bare negation is the proper and sufficient answer to a bare affirmation. I add, ‘If these instances had increased daily, it is easy to account for them another way,’ as is done in the First Part of the Farther Appeal. [See Works, viii. 130-4.] You say, ‘Most have heard of or known several of the Methodists thus driven to distraction.’ I answered, ‘You may have heard of five hundred; but how many have you known Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them -- no, not one of them to this day, either man, woman, or child.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 10.] You reply, ‘This’ (the naming them) ‘would be very improper and unnecessary’ (Second Letter, p. 138). However, sir, it is extremely necessary that you should name them to me in private. I will then, if required, excuse you to the public; which till then I cannot do. The person I mentioned, whom you threw into much doubt and perplexity, then lived in the parish of St. Ann, Westminster. I related the case just as she related it to me. But she is able and ready to answer for herself.

3. But what if there were now to be wrought ever so many ‘real and undoubted miracles’ (I suppose you mean by ‘undoubted’ such as, being sufficiently attested, ought not to be doubted of.) Why, ‘this,’ you say, ‘would put the controversy on a short foot, and be an effectual proof of the truth of your presences.’ By no means. As common as this assertion is, there is none upon earth more false. Suppose a teacher were now on this very day to work ‘real and undoubted miracles’; this would extremely little ‘shorten the controversy’ between him and the greater part of his opposers: for all this would not force them to believe; but many would still stand just where they did before, seeing men may ‘harden their hearts’ against miracles as well as against arguments. So men have done from the beginning of the world, even against such signal, glorious miracles, against such interpositions of the power of God, as may not be again till the consummation of all things. Permit me to remind you only of a few instances, and to observe that the argument holds a fortiori; for who will ever be empowered of God again to work such miracles as these were Did Pharaoh look on all that Moses and Aaron wrought as an 'effectual proof of the truth of their presences' even when 'the Lord made the sea dry land and the waters were divided'; when 'the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall unto them on the right hand and on the left' (Exod. xiv. 21-2.) Nay, The wounded dragon raged in vain, And, fierce the utmost plague to brave, Madly he dared the parted main, And sunk beneath the o’erwhelming wave. [See Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, iv. 303.]

I would just remind you of only one instance more: ‘There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother’s womb, who never had walked. The same heard Paul speak; who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.’ Here was so undoubted a miracle that the people ‘lifted up their voices, saying, The gods are come down in the likeness of men.’ But how long were even these convinced of the truth of his presences Only till ‘there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium’; and then they stoned him (as they supposed) to death! (Acts xiv. 8-19.) So certain it is that no miracles whatever which were ever yet wrought in the world were effectual to prove the most glaring truth to those that hardened their hearts against it. 4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. ‘If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be’ convinced of what they desire not to believe, ‘though one rose from the dead.’ Without a miracle, without one rising from the dead, t T t Ta at pe, ‘if any man be willing to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God’; but if he is not willing to do His will, he will never want an excuse, a plausible reason, for rejecting it -- yea, though ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it. For, let ever so much ‘light come into the world,’ it will have no effect (such is the wise and just will of God) on those who ‘love darkness rather than light.’ It will not convince those who do not simply desire to do the will of their Father which is in heaven; those who mind earthly things-who, if they do not continue in any gross outward sin, yet love pleasure or ease, yet seek profit or power, preferment or reputation. Nothing will ever be an effectual proof to these of the holy and acceptable will of God, unless first their proud hearts be humbled, their stubborn wills bowed down, and their desires brought, at least in some degree, into obedience to the law of Christ.

7. Let us consider this point yet a little farther. ‘What is it you would have us prove by miracles The doctrines we preach’ We prove these by Scripture and reason, and (if need be) by antiquity. What else is it, then, that we are to prove by miracles At length we have a distinct reply: ‘Wise and sober men will not otherwise be convinced’ (that is, unless you prove this by miracles) ‘that God is, by the means of such teachers and such doctrines, working a great and extraordinary work in the earth’ (Preface, p. 6). So, then, the determinate point which you in their name call upon us to prove by miracles is this, ‘that God is by these teachers working a great and extraordinary work in the earth.’ What I mean by ‘a great and extraordinary work’ is, the bringing multitudes of gross notorious sinners in a short space to the fear and love and service of God, to an entire change of heart and life. Now, then, let us take a nearer view of the proposition, and see which part of it we are to prove by miracles. ‘Is it (1) that A. B. was for many years without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, a Sabbath-breaker ‘Or (2) that he is not so now ‘Or (3) that he continued so till he heard these men preach, and from that time was another man ‘Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is by the testimony of competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. ‘Or would you have us prove by miracles (4) that this was not done by our own power or holiness that God only is able to raise the dead, to quicken those who are dead in trespasses and sins' Surely no. Whosoever believes the Scriptures will want no new proof of this. Where, then, is the wisdom of those men who demand miracles in proof of such a proposition one branch of which, ‘that such sinners were reformed by the means of these teachers,’ being a plain fact, can only be proved by testimony, as all other facts are; and the other, ‘that this is a work of God, and a great and more than ordinary work,’ needs no proof, as carrying its own evidence to every thinking man.

Inquire, then, ‘Which are greater, the numbers of serious men perplexed and deluded by these teachers, or of notorious sinners brought to repentance and good life,’ within the forest of Kingswood Many, indeed, of the inhabitants are nearly as they were, are not much better or worse for their preaching, because the neighboring clergy and gentry have successfully labored to deter them from hearing it. But between three and four hundred of those who would not be deterred are now under the care of those preachers. Now, what number of these were serious Christians before Were fifty were twenty were ten Peradventure there might five such be found. But it is a question whether there could be or no. The remainder were gross, open sinners, common swearers, drunkards, Sabbath-breakers, whoremongers, plunderers, robbers, implacable, unmerciful, wolves and bears in the shape of men. Do you desire instances of more ‘notorious sinners’ than these I know not if Turkey or Japan can afford them. And what do you include in ‘repentance and good life’ Give the strictest definition thereof that you are able, and I will undertake these once notorious sinners shall be weighed in that balance and not found wanting. 8. Not that all the Methodists (so called) ‘were very wicked people before they followed us.’ There are those among them, and not a few, who are able to stop the boasting of those that despise them, and to say, ‘Whereinsoever any of you is bold, I am bold also’; only they ‘count all these things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus.’ But these we found, as it were, when we sought them not. We went forth to ‘seek that which was lost’ (more eminently lost); ‘to call’ the most flagrant, hardened, desperate ‘sinners to repentance.’ To this end we preached in the Horsefair at Bristol, in Kingswood, in Newcastle; among the colliers in Staffordshire and the tinners in Cornwall; in Southwark, Wapping, Moorfields, Drury Lane, at London. Did any man ever pick out such places as these in order to find ‘serious, regular, well-disposed people’ How many such might then be in any of them I know not. But this I know, that four in five of those who are now with us were not of that number, but were wallowing in their blood, till God by us said unto them, ‘Live.’

9. One point of doctrine remains: ‘Is there any such thing as perceptible inspiration or not’ I asserted, ‘There is’; but at the same time subjoined, ‘Be pleased to observe what we mean thereby: we mean that inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit whereby He fills us (every true believer) with righteousness and peace and joy, with love to Him and all mankind. And we believe it cannot be in the nature of things that a man should be filled with this peace and joy and love by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost without perceiving it as clearly as he does the light of the sun.’ You reply, ‘You have now entirely shifted the question.’ I think not. You objected that I had perceptible inspiration. I answered, ‘I do’: but observe in what sense; otherwise I must recall my concession. I hold God inspires every Christian with peace, joy, and love, which are all perceptible. You reply, ‘The question is not whether the fruits of inspiration are perceptible, but whether the work of inspiration itself be so.’ This was not my question; nor did I till now understand that it was yours. If I had, I should have returned a different answer, as I have elsewhere done already. When one warmly objected near two years ago, ‘All reasonable Christians believe that the Holy Spirit works His graces in us in an imperceptible manner,’ my answer was, ‘You are here disproving, as you suppose, a proposition of mine. But are you sure you understand it By the operations (inspirations or workings) of the Spirit, I do not mean the manner in which He operates, but the graces which He operates (inspires or works) in a Christian.’ If you ask, But do not you hold 'that Christian faith implies a direct, perceptible testimony of the Spirit, as distinguishable from the suggestion of fancy as light is distinguishable from darkness; whereas we suppose He imperceptibly influences our minds' I answer, I do hold this. I suppose that every Christian believer, over and above that imperceptible influence, hath a direct perceptible testimony of the Spirit that he is a child of God.

MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- As many of you as have set your hands to the plough, see that you go on and look not back. The prize and the crown are before you; and in due time you shall reap if you faint not. Meantime fight the good fight of faith, enduring the cross and despising the shame. Beware that none of you return evil for evil or railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing. Show forth out of a loving heart your good conversation with meekness and wisdom. Avoid all disputes as you would avoid fire: so shall ye continue kindly affectioned one toward another. The God of peace be with you. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To John Bennet [7] LONDON, December 20, 1746. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Is what you mention concerning poor David Taylor a certain truth Do you speak on sure grounds Or is it only a flying report It is exceeding strange, if it is true. If it was true, did not his late teachers know it And if they did know it, could they be honest men Surely it would be worth while to talk with him once. It may help him, and not hurt you. Methinks you should see poor Mr. Hutchings also once. I scarce know how to believe that he is so weak. Although, when a believer has once let go his hold, he may sink into anything. You should also talk with as many of the scattered sheep as you can. Some of them, perhaps, may yet return into the way of truth. I shall write to my brother by this post, and mention his coming through Cheshire, if possible. It will be best for you to write to him immediately to Newcastle, and fix a day for meeting him at Birstall or Sheffield.[Charles Wesley was in Newcastle, and reached Sheffield on Feb. 1, 1747.] You should write to me as often as you can. T. Westall [Thomas Westall was one of Wesley’s first lay preachers. ‘He was a pattern of simplicity and humble love.’ He resided at Bristol, where he died in 1794. see Atmore's Memorial, pp. 486-7.]will take advice in all things. Be strong, and God shall comfort your heart. But you must not be always at one place. Grace be with you. Farewell. TO Mr. John Bennet, Chinley End, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire.

To Ebenezer Blackwell [1] BRISTOL, January 26, 1747. DEAR SIR, -- Our number of patients increases here daily. We have now upwards of two hundred. Many have already desired to return thanks, having found a considerable change for the better already. But we are at a great loss for medicines, several of those we should choose being not to be had at any price in Bristol. I have been sometimes afraid you have suffered loss for want of a frank acknowledgement of the truth: I mean with regard to the gay world. If we openly avow what we approve, the fear or shame generally lights on them; but if we are ashamed or afraid, then they pursue, and will be apt to rally us both out of our reason and religion. -- I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. My best respects attend Mrs. Blackwell and Mrs. Dewal.[Mrs. Hannah Dewal lived with the Blackwells at Lewisham, and was one of the most intimate friends of John and Charles Wesley. See C. Wesley's Journal, ii. 170, 379-83.] I hope you strengthen each other's hands. To Howell Harris [2] NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, March 3, 1747. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I was glad to receive a letter from you, though sorry for some of the contents of it. I believed Brother Cownley would labor for peace and simply preach the gospel. I wrote pressingly to Brother Richards (who, I suppose, was at Plymouth since, in his return from Cornwall) to tread in the same steps. By degrees I trust these unkind affections will subside and brotherly love revive and increase. My brother said (this I know) ‘he had no more design to have a Society at Plymouth than a palace’; and he had not neither then nor when he desired John Trembath to call there. Nor, indeed, does he now concern himself therewith. The burthen lies upon me, and I am in a strait between two. I am much solicited to suffer those who press for it to be under my care. But what to do I know not. May God make plain my way before my face.

This I mentioned in my last. But it is certain, over and above those other graces which the Holy Spirit inspires into or operates in a Christian, and over and above His imperceptible influences, I do intend all mankind should understand me to assert (what I therefore express in the clearest language I am master of) every Christian believer hath a perceptible testimony of the Spirit that he is a child of God. I use the phrase ‘testimony of the Spirit’ rather than ‘inspiration,’ because it has a more determinate meaning. And I desire men to know what I mean, and what I do not; that I may not fight as one that beateth the air. 7. Is there ‘not one word said of this, either in the Farther Appeal or in any one place in the Bible’ I think there is in the Bible, in the 16th verse of the 8th chapter to the Romans. And is not this very place proved to describe the ordinary privilege of every Christian believer in the Farther Appeal, from the forty-fifth to the forty-ninth and from the fifty-sixth to the fifty-ninth page [Part I. See Works, viii. 83-7, 93-5]

Give me leave to remind you of some of the words. In the forty-ninth page the argument concludes thus: ‘It will follow that this witness of the Spirit is the private testimony given to our own consciences, which consequently all sober Christians may claim, without any danger of enthusiasm.’ In the fifty-seventh page are these words: ‘Every one that is born of God, and doth not commit sin, by his very actions saith, “Our Father which art in heaven”; the Spirit itself bearing witness with their spirit that they are the children of God. According to Origen, therefore, this testimony of the Spirit is not any public testimony by miracles, but an inward testimony belonging in common to all that are born of God.’ Once more: in the fifty-eighth page are these words: ‘He brings yet another proof of the superiority of those who had this Spirit of adoption: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” “I prove this,” says he, “not only from the voice itself, but also from the cause whence that voice proceeds. For the Spirit suggests the words while we thus speak, which he hath elsewhere expressed more plainly, ‘God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father!’ But what is ‘The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit’” He means the Paraclete by the gift given unto us.’ (But that this was an extraordinary gift we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after.) ‘And when the Spirit beareth witness, what doubt is left If a man or an angel spake, some might doubt; but when the Most High beareth witness to us, who can doubt any longer’ I am mistaken if this does not come home to the point, to the question now before us: describing a perceptible testimony of the Holy Ghost, ‘directly felt to be worked by Himself.’

8. But I will waive all authorities, that of Origen and Chrysostom, as well as of Hannah Richardson (though not a weak woman, but eminently the reverse) and Averel Spenser [See letters of Dec. 30, 1745, sects. 4, 7, and March 22, 1748, sect. 14.](though not a wicked one), only observing that your argument proves too much. I am as fully assured to-day, as I am of the shining of the sun, that the Scriptures are of God. I cannot possibly deny or doubt of it now: yet I may doubt of it to-morrow; as I have done heretofore a thousand times, and that after the fullest assurance preceding. Now, if this be 'a demonstration that my former assurance was a mere fancy,' then farewell all revelation at once!

But to come closer yet, and weigh the point in debate in the balance of plain reason. You must allow there is a testimony of the Spirit with our spirit that we are the children of God. ‘But,’ you say, ‘it is not a perceptible one.’ How is this Let us examine it thoroughly. It is allowed (1) the Spirit of God (2) bears testimony to my spirit (3) that I am a child of God. But I am not to perceive it. Not to perceive what the first, second, or third particular Am I not to perceive what is testified -- that I am a child of God Then it is not testified at all. This is saying and unlaying in the same breath. Or am I not to perceive that it is testified to my spirit Yea, but I must perceive what passes in my own soul! Or, lastly, am I to perceive that I am a child of God, and that this is testified to my spirit, but not to perceive who it is that testifies not to know it is the Spirit of God O sir, if there really be a man in the world who hath this testimony in himself, can it be supposed that he does not know who it is that testifies who it is that speaks to his heart that speaks in his inmost soul as never man spake If he does not, he is ignorant of the whole affair. If you are in this state, I pray God you may say from the heart, ‘Lord, what I know not, teach Thou me.’ How much better were this than to canonize your own ignorance as the only knowledge and wisdom, and to condemn all the generation of God's children of ‘idiotism and madness’! 9. Under your last head you do not confine yourself now within the bounds you at first proposed, when you said, ‘I am not making conjectures of what may happen, but relating mischiefs which actually have happened.’ Take care you do not grow warm when I reply to this; you will have need of all your patience to bear it.

You ascribe it likewise in part to ‘a natural knack of persuasion.’ If either by a natural or an acquired power of persuasion I can prevail upon sinners to turn to God, am I to bury even that talent in the earth ‘No; but try if you cannot do more good in a college or in a parish.’ [See letter of March 20, 1739, to James Hervey.] I have tried both, and I could not do any substantial good, either to my pupils or my parishioners. Among my parishioners in Lincolnshire I tried for some years; but I am well assured I did far more good to them by preaching three days on my father's tomb than I did by preaching three years in his pulpit. But you ‘know no call I have to preach up and down, to play the part of an itinerant evangelist.’ Perhaps you do not. But I do: I know God hath required this at my hands. To me, His blessing my work is an abundant proof; although such a proof as often makes me tremble. But ‘is there not pride or vanity in my heart’ There is; yet this is not my motive to preaching. I know and feel that the spring of this is a deep conviction that it is the will of God, and that, were I to refrain, I should never hear that word, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,’ but, ‘Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness, where is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.’ To Ebenezer Blackwell SHEFFIELD, May 14, 1747. DEAR SIR, -- Are you not getting weary and faint in your mind Do you continue to strive for the mastery It is a good though painful fight. I am sometimes afraid of your turning back before you conquer. Your enemies are many, and your strength is small. What an amazing thing it will be, if you should endure to the end!

By ‘extraordinary strictnesses and severities,’ I presume your Lordship means the abstaining from wine and animal food; which, it is sure, Christianity does not require. But if you do, I fear your Lordship is not thoroughly informed of the matter of fact. I began to do this about twelve years ago, when I had no thought of ‘annoying parochial ministers,’ or of ‘captivating’ any ‘people’ thereby, unless it were the Chicasaw or Choctaw Indians. But I resumed the use of them both, about two years after, for the sake of some who thought I made it a point of conscience; telling them, ‘I will eat flesh while the world standeth’ rather than ‘make my brother to offend.’ Dr. Cheyne advised me to leave them off again, assuring me, ‘Till you do, you will never be free from fevers.’ And since I have taken his advice, I have been free (blessed be God) from all bodily disorders. [I continued this about two years (Wesley). See Tyerman’s Wesley, i.28-9; and letter of Nov. 1, 1724.] Would to God I knew any method of being equally free from all ‘follies and indiscretions’! But this I never expect to attain till my spirit returns to God. 15. But in how strange a manner does your Lordship represent this! What a construction do you put upon it! ‘Appearances of an uncommon sanctity, in order to captivate the people. Pretensions to more exalted degrees of strictness, to make their way into weak minds and fickle heads.’ (Page 25.) ‘Pretences to greater sanctity, whereby they draw over to themselves the most ignorant of the people’ (page 4). If these are ‘appearances of uncommon sanctity' (which, indeed, might bear a dispute), how does your Lordship know that they are only appearances that they do not spring from the heart Suppose these were 'exalted degrees of strictness,’ is your Lordship absolutely assured that we practice them only ‘to make our way into weak minds and fickle heads' Where is the proof that these 'presences to greater sanctity’ (as your Lordship is pleased to phrase them) are mere presences, and have nothing of reality or sincerity in them

This is there shown, both by Scripture, by reason, and by authority, particularly that of Origen and Chrysostom, whom his Lordship of Lichfield had cited in his Charge [Richard Smallbroke, Bishop of Lichfield 1730-49, published treatises against Whiston and Woolaston. In a Charge, delivered in 1741 and published in 1744, he set himself ‘to obviate the Contagion of those Enthusiastical Pretensions that in several parts of the nation have lately, as well as formerly, betrayed whole Multitudes either into an unreasonable Presumption of their Salvation, or into melancholy if not desponding Opinions about it.’ He attempted to prove, with the aid of Origen and Chrysostom’s homily on I Cor. ii. 4, that the ‘demonstration of the Spirit and power’ referred to the miracles of the apostolic age (pp. 15, 26, 31-2), and that the Testimony of the Spirit, in the Sense of the Holy Scriptures, is abusively pretended to by a new sect of Enthusiastical Seducers among us.’ Whitefield wrote Some Remarks upon a late Charge against Enthusiasm, and Wesley answered the Bishop in A Farther Appeal.] as asserting just the contrary. But, waiving authorities, I reasoned thus: ‘You allow there is a testimony of the Spirit with our spirit that we are the children of God. But you say it is not a perceptible one. How is this Let us examine it thoroughly. It is allowed (1) the Spirit of God (2) bears testimony to my spirit (3) that I am a child of God. But I am not to perceive it. Not to perceive what the first, second, or third particular Am I not to perceive what is testified -- that I am a child of God Then it is not testified at all. This is saying and unlaying in the same breath. Or am I not to perceive that it is testified to my spirit Yea, but I must perceive what passes in my own soul! Or, lastly, am I to perceive that I am a child of God, and that this is testified to my spirit, but not to perceive who it is that testifies not to know it is the Spirit of God O sir, if there be really a man in the world who hath this testimony in himself, can it be supposed that he does not know who it is that testifies who it is that speaks to his heart’

7. Instead of giving a direct answer to this, you have recourse to the same supposition with his Lordship of Lichfield and Coventry -- namely, that there was once an inward, perceptible testimony of the Spirit, but that it was peculiar to the early ages of the Church. ‘There are three ways,’ say you, ‘in which the Holy Spirit may be said to bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God: (1) By external, miraculous attestations. (2) By internal, plainly perceptible whispers.’ (I must add, ‘not in words, at least not always, but by some kind of impressions equivalent thereto.’) ‘(3) By His standing testimony in the Holy Scriptures. The Apostles had all these three; Origen and Chrysostom probably the two latter. But if St. Bernard, several hundred years after, pretended to any other than the third, his neighbors would naturally ask for proof, either that it should be so by Scripture or that it was so by facts.’

Well, then, let us suppose St. Bernard and one of his neighbors to be talking together on this subject. On St. Bernard's saying, ‘The Spirit of God bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God,’ his neighbor replies, ‘I suppose He does, but not by an inward, plainly perceptible testimony.’ ‘Yes, by an inward, plainly perceptible testimony. I now have this testimony in myself; I plainly perceive that I am a child of God, and that it is His Spirit who testifies it to my spirit.’ ‘I fear you are somewhat enthusiastically given. I allow God’s standing testimony in the Scriptures; but I cannot allow that there is now any such thing as this inward testimony, unless you can either prove by Scripture that it should be so or by facts that it is so.’ ‘Are not these words Scripture: “The Spirit itself beareth testimony with our spirit that we are the children of God”’ ‘Yes; but the question is, how they are to be understood: for I deny that they speak of an inward testimony. They speak of the outward, standing testimony of God in the Holy Scriptures.’ ‘You put a manifest force upon the text. You cannot prove that it speaks of any outward testimony at all. But the words immediately preceding prove to a demonstration that it speaks of an inward testimony: “Ye have not received the spirit of bondage unto fear” (is not fear an inward thing); “but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!” The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God, even the same Spirit which “God hath sent forth into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father I”’ ‘I do not deny that the Spirit bears witness with our spirit. But I deny your peculiar interpretation of this text. I deny that this text at all favors an inward, perceptible testimony.’ ‘The Spirit which God hath sent into my heart, and which now cries in my heart “Abba, Father,” now beareth testimony with my spirit that I am a child of God. How can these words be interpreted at all but of an inward, perceptible testimony’ ‘I tell you, of God's standing testimony in Scripture.’ ‘This is a palpable violence to the words. They no more speak of Scripture than of miracles.

They no more speak of Scripture than of miracles. They manifestly speak of what passes in the heart, the spirit, the inmost soul of a believer, and that only.’ 8. But you would say, ‘Suppose this scripture to prove that it should be so, can you show by facts that it is so’ Not if you take it for granted that every one who speaks of having this witness in himself is an enthusiast. You are then in no danger of proof from this quarter. You have a short answer to every fact which can be alleged. But you turn the tables. You say it is I who allow that ‘many of God's children do not continue in sound mind and memory.’ I allowed: (1) A man feels the testimony of God's Spirit, and cannot then deny or doubt his being a child of God. (2) After a time this testimony is withdrawn: not from every child of God; many retain the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end. (3) Then he may doubt whether that testimony was of God, and perhaps at length deny that it was, especially if his heart be hardened by the deceitfulness of his sin. And yet he may be all this time in every other respect of ‘sound memory as well as understanding.’ In this respect I allowed he is not -- that is, ‘his understanding is now darkened, and the very traces of that divine work wellnigh erased out of his memory.’ So I expressly determined the sense wherein I allowed ‘he does not continue in sound mind and memory.’ But did I allow that even then he was non compos mentis -- a madman in the common sense Nothing less: I allowed no more than, the divine light being withdrawn, his mind was again dark as to the things of God; and that he had forgotten t aTas t pa at ‘aat, [2 Pet. i. 9 ‘The purification from his former sins.’] wellnigh as if it had never been.

10. You add: ‘If we reply, There are enthusiasts in the world, you can keep your temper no longer; and the only answer is, If we perceive not that witness in ourselves, we are ignorant of the whole affair, and doomed to the “everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”’ I said not so. I can keep my temper (blessed be God) if you call me an hundred enthusiasts, if you affirm I am ten times more of an enthusiast than that poor Quaker probably was. [‘Smith’ referred to a Quaker which he was fully persuaded was who had brought him a message received from God.] The sharpest word I said was, ‘If a man does not know who it is that testifies with his spirit he is a child of God, he is ignorant of the whole affair.’ But I felt no anger when I said this. Nor do I now. Though I still think (because you say it yourself) that you are ignorant of this whole affair, of the inward testimony for which I contend. Yet am I far from dooming you to everlasting fire. What you know not, I trust God will reveal unto you. Least of all was this my ‘only answer to your supposition 'that this perceptible testimony is only an imagination, unless I am altogether in a dream.’ I have given some other answer, and a pretty full one, to the objection -- such an one, I think, as the nature of the thing admits, at least as my capacity would allow.

11. I have largely considered, both in the Third Part of the Appeal and in the latter part of the Second Letter to Mr. Church, the unreasonableness of the common demand to prove our doctrine by miracles. I cannot but refer you to those tracts, having neither time nor inclination actum agere. [‘To do the same thing repeatedly.’] Only I would weigh what you have now advanced in support of that demand. ‘If the enthusiast is as confident of his inspiration as one really inspired is of his, a third person has a right to call for other proof than confident assertions’ -- that is, for miracles. So you explain yourself in the following sentence. Let us try how this consequence will hold in a particular instance: ‘The Spirit said unto Paul, Go not into Macedonia.’ When he related this to his companions, ought they to have replied, ‘We call for other proof of this than your confident assertion, seeing enthusiasts are as confident of theirs as you are of this revelation’ If you say, ‘They had seen his miracles at other times’; I know not that: perhaps they had, perhaps they had not. But to step a little forward: ‘If in the days of Origen and Chrysostom external miraculous powers were ceased, while internal inspiration still remained,’ what becomes of your demand here It is totally excluded; although there were, in those days also, pretenders to what they had not. And yet there might have been other sufficient reasons for believing the assertion of Origen, Chrysostom, and St. Bernard too, that they had this internal testimony. Such was, besides the holiness of their lives, that great and standing miracle -- their saving so many souls from death and hiding a multitude of sins. 12. There are at least as many pretenders to the love of God as there are to the witness of His Spirit. But does this give me a right, if a man asserts he loves God, to demand his proving that assertion by miracles Not so; but by their fruits I shall know a real and a pretended love of God. And in the same manner may I know him that has the witness of God's love from an enthusiastic pretender to it. But if a man disclaims it, he sets himself out of the question. It is beyond dispute that he has it not.

IV. If you object, (1) ‘Job, Thomas, St. Paul, &c., had this sense,’ I grant they had; but they were justified before they had it. (2) ‘We know fifteen hundred persons who have this assurance.’ Perhaps so; but this does not prove that they were not justified till they received it. (3) 'We have been exceedingly blessed in preaching this doctrine.' We have been blessed in preaching the great truths of the gospel; although we tacked to them, in the simplicity of our hearts, a proposition which was not true. (4) ‘But does not our Church give this account of justifying faith’ I am sure she does of saving or Christian faith; I think she does of justifying faith too. But to the law and testimony. All men may err; but the word of the Lord shall stand for ever. To Ebenezer Blackwell [7] DUBLIN, August 13, 1747. DEAR SIR, -- I have found a home in this strange land. I am at Mr. Lunell's just as at the Foundry; only that I have not such attendance here, for I meet the people at another part of the town. For natural sweetness of temper, for courtesy and hospitality, I have never seen any people like the Irish. Indeed, all I converse with are only English transplanted into another soil; and they are much mended by the removal, having left all their roughness and surliness behind them. They receive the word of God with all gladness and readiness of mind. The danger is that it should not take deep root, that it should be as seed falling on stony ground. But is there not the same danger in England also Do not you find it in London You have received the word with joy, and it begins to spring up; but how soon may it wither away! It does not properly take root till we are convinced of inward sin, till we begin to feel the entire corruption of our nature. I believe sometimes you have found a little of this. But you are in the hands of a good Physician; who, if you give yourself up to His guidance, will not only wound, but also make whole. Mr. Lunell and his family desire their best respects to Mrs. Blackwell and you. His daughter can rejoice in God her Saviour. They propose to spend the winter in England.--I am, dear sir,

And now you know not that you have done anything amiss! You can eat and drink and be merry. You are every day engaged with variety of company and frequent the coffeehouses! Alas, my brother, what is this How are you above measure hardened by the deceitfulness of sin! Do you remember the story of Santon Barsisa [The history of Santon Barsisa, taken by Steele out of the Turkish Tales, forms No. 148 of the Guardian, Aug. 31, 1718.] I pray God your last end may not be like his! Oh how have you grieved the Spirit of God! Return to Him with weeping, fasting, and mourning. You are in the very belly of hell; only the pit hath not yet shut its mouth upon you. Arise, thou sleeper, and call upon thy God! Perhaps He may yet be found. Because He still bears with me, I cannot despair for you. But you have not a moment to lose. May God this instant strike you to the heart, that you may feel His wrath abiding on you, and have no rest in your bones, by reason of your sin, till all your iniquities are done away!

It is true, indeed, that 'all true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of His own Spirit'; or (to speak plain), that we cannot truly worship God, unless His Spirit move or incline our hearts. It is equally true that 'we ought to pray and preach only where and when we are moved thereto by His Spirit.' But I fear you do not in any wise understand what the being 'moved by His Spirit' means. God moves man, whom He has made a reasonable creature, according to the reason which He has given him. He moves him by his understanding as well as his affections, by light as well as by heat. He moves him to do this or that by conviction full as often as by desire. Accordingly you are as really 'moved by the Spirit' when He convinces you you ought to feed him that is hungry, as when He gives you ever so strong an impulse, desire, or inclination so to do. In like manner, you are as really moved by the Spirit to pray, whether it be in public or private, when you have a conviction it is the will of God you should, as when you have the strongest impulse upon your heart. And He does truly move you to preach, when in His light you 'see light' clearly satisfying you it is His will, as much as when you feel the most vehement impulse or desire to 'hold forth the words of eternal life.' Now let us consider the main proposition: 'All worship which man sets about in his own will and at his own appointment' Hold! That is quite another thing. It may be at his own appointment, and yet not in his own will; for instance: It is not my own will to preach at all. It is quite contrary to my will. Many a time have I cried out, 'Lord, send by whom Thou wilt send; only send not me I' But I am moved by the Spirit of God to preach: He clearly shows me it is His will I should; and that I should do it when and where the greatest number of poor sinners may be gathered together. Moved by Him, I give up my will, and appoint a time and place, when by His power I trust to speak in His name.

How widely different, then, from true Christianity is that amazing sentence, 'All praises, prayers, and preachings which man can begin and end at his pleasure, do or leave undone, as himself sees meet, are superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatry in the sight of God '! There is not one tittle of Scripture for this; nor yet is there any sound reason. When you take it for granted, 'In all preachings which a man begins or ends at his pleasure, does or leaves undone as he sees meet, he is not moved by the Spirit of God,' you are too hasty a great deal. It may be by the Spirit that he sees meet to do or leave it undone. How will you prove that it is not His pleasure may depend on the pleasure of God, signified to him by His Spirit. His appointing this or that time or place does in no wise prove the contrary. Prove me that proposition, if you can: 'Every man who preaches or prays at an appointed time, preaches or prays in his own will, and not by the Spirit.' That 'all such preaching is will-worship, in the sense St. Paul uses the word,' is no more true than that it is murder. That it is superstition remains also to be proved. That it is abominable idolatry, how will you reconcile with what follows but a few lines after--'However it might please God, who winked at the times of ignorance, to raise some breathings and answer them.' What! answer the breathings of abominable idolatry! I observe how warily this is worded; but it allows enough. If God ever raised and answered those prayers which were made at set times, then those prayers could not be abominable idolatry. Again: that prayers and preachings, though made at appointed times, may yet proceed from the Spirit of God, may be clearly proved from those other words of Robert Barclay himself, page 389: 'That preaching or prayer which is not done by the actings and movings of God's Spirit cannot beget faith.' Most true. But preaching and prayer at appointed times have begotten faith both at Bristol and Paulton. You know it well. Therefore that preaching and prayer, though at appointed times, was 'done by the actings and movings of God's Spirit.'

MY DEAR BROTHER,--I presume you know how bitter Mr. Ellis (the minister here) used to be against the Methodists. On Friday he came to hear me preach, I believe with no friendly intention. Brother Swindells[Robert Swindells, a man of great zeal and fine spirit, was one of Wesley's devoted preachers for more than forty years. He did much for the poor, and sometimes gave even part of his own clothes to relieve distress. He suffered much, and died suddenly in 1782. See Atmore's Memorial, p. 409; and letter of Feb. 14, 1778, to Mrs. Johnson.] spoke a few words to him, whereupon he invited him to his house. Since then they have spent several hours together, and I believe his views of things are greatly changed. He commends you much for bringing the Methodists back to the Church; and at his request I have wrote a little thing to the same effect. He will translate it into Welsh, and then I design to print it both in Welsh and English: I will send you some as soon as I can, that you may disperse them when you see occasion. I thought it good to apprise you of this before. I know your heart is herein as my heart. O my brother, let us join hand in hand and fight our way through I I want all your prayers. I believe God has detained us here for the sake both of the minister and the people. Grace and peace be with you and yours.--I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Cennick [5] March 14, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have heard much since I came to Dublin of the affair of Skinner's Alley. I am unwilling to do anything which may appear contrary to brotherly love, and therefore, if you desire it and can procure Mr. Edwards' consent, I am willing to give up the house into your hands this day. I wish you much light and love of God; and am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Cennick, Skinner's Alley. To John Cennick [6] SHIP STREET, March 14, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You say true, Mr. Edwards has not now any authority to let that house. What I desire is to do as I would be done to with as little noise as possible.

6. My father did not die unacquainted with the faith of the gospel, of the primitive Christians, or of our first Reformers; the same which, by the grace of God, I preach, and which is just as new as Christianity. What he experienced before, I know not; but I know that during his last illness, which continued eight months, he enjoyed a clear sense of his acceptance with God. I heard him express it more than once, although at that time I understood him not. 'The inward witness, son, the inward witness,' said he to me, 'that is the proof, the strongest proof, of Christianity.' And when I asked him (the time of his change drawing nigh), 'Sir, are you in much pain' he answered aloud, with a smile, 'God does chasten me with pain--yea, all my bones with strong pain; but I thank Him for all, I bless Him for all, I love Him for all!' I think the last words he spoke, when I had just commended his soul to God, were, 'Now you have done all.' And, with the same serene, cheerful countenance, he fell asleep, without one struggle or sigh or groan. I cannot therefore doubt but the Spirit of God bore an inward witness with his spirit that he was a child of God.[See Charles Wesley's letter to Samuel, April 30, 1735, in Priestley's Letters, pp. 51-3.] 7. That 'God blesses a doctrine preached (new or old) to the saving of souls from death does not prove that every circumstance of it is true; for a Predestinarian preacher may save souls.' But it undoubtedly proves that the main of what is preached is the truth as it is in Jesus; for it is only the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power of God unto salvation. Human wisdom, as human laws, may restrain from outward sin; but they cannot avail to the saving of the soul. If God gives this blessing to what is preached, it is a sufficient 'proof of His approbation.' But I will not contend about words, or, when His blessing is allowed, dispute whether it has His approbation or not.

12. If a single parish takes up your whole time and care, and you spend and are spent upon it, well. And yet I will be bold to say that no blessing from God will accompany your ministry, but the drunkard will be a drunkard still (and so the covetous, the brawler, the adulterer), unless you both believe and teach what you love to call my 'new notions of inspiration'; I mean as to the substance, not the particular manner of explication. You will all the day long stretch out your hands in vain, unless you teach them to pray that the Spirit of God may inwardly witness with their spirits that they are the children of God. I apprehend you are the person that 'wriggle on this head,' because the argument pinches: you appear to me to twist and wind to and fro, because I 'distinguish away,' not my doctrines, but your objections--unravelling the fallacies, showing what part is false, and what part true, but nothing to the purpose. Since you move it again, I will resume the point once more. You will pardon me if I speak home, that it may be seen which of us two it is that has hitherto given the 'evasive answers.' 13. You say, 'Notwithstanding all your pains to distort that text, for anything which has yet been said to the contrary, it may be understood of the Spirit's witness by miracles, by prophecy, or by the imperceptibly wrought assurances of the Holy Ghost.' This (unless it gives up the whole cause; as indeed it must if it does not imply a contradiction, seeing imperceptible assurance is no assurance at all) is neither an evasive nor an unevasive answer. It is just no answer at all. Instead of refuting my arguments, you reply, 'You distort the text. Ipse dixi.' 'The Quakers maintain divine illapses and sensible communications always; you only sometimes.' If you speak to the purpose, if you mean the inward witness of God's Spirit, I maintain it always as well as they. 'The Methodist writings abound with intimations of divine communications, prophetic whispers, and special guidances.' Perhaps so; but that is another question. We are now speaking of the inward witness of the Spirit.

14. 'They teach the notification of justification to be as perceptible as the sun at noonday.' Now you come to the point, and I allow the charge. From the beginning of our correspondence to this day I have, without any shifting or evasion at all, maintained flatly and plainly: (1) A man feels the testimony of God's Spirit, and cannot then deny or doubt his being a child of God. (2) After a time this testimony is withdrawn: not from every child of God; many retain the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end. (3) Then he may doubt whether this testimony was of God; and perhaps at length deny that it was. There is no shadow of contradiction between this and the case of Hannah Richardson.[See letter of Dec. 30, 1745, sect. 7, to him.] For (1) She felt the testimony of God's Spirit, and could not then deny or doubt her being a child of God. (2) After a time this testimony was withdrawn. (3) Then she doubted whether it was of God. Observe: she never forgot or denied that she had such a testimony; but she then doubted whether it was of God. But you have still more to remark upon this head: so I attend you step by step. 15. 'The instances produced' (it should be 'instance,' for you cite but one) 'in support of these high claims, instead of supporting, utterly subvert them. Thus Hannah Richardson had her justification notified; and yet she denied that her sins were forgiven.' You should say, She doubted of it after a time, when the testimony of God's Spirit was withdrawn. 'Now, either this notification was not so distinct as is pretended, or, if distinct, was notified by one of suspected credit, whom she could not believe. Or, if it was both distinct and credible, she was not of sound understanding if she disbelieved it, nor of sound memory if she' (afterwards, it should be) 'doubted or denied that she had ever received such a message.'

If Webster's spirit be not altered, and that speedily, I shall send him back to Plymouth Dock.[Eleazer Webster was evidently a troublesome preacher. See letter of Feb. 9, 1750.] I trust your own soul is not neglected in the multiplicity of business which comes upon you from other men. O be much in prayer! I am often concerned for you. The Spirit of God be your Guide, and His love your portion for ever. To a Friend [23] NEWINGTON, December 10, 1748. DEAR SIR,--1. I have read your letter with attention, and much approve of the spirit with which it is wrote. You speak in love. I desire to do so too; and then no harm can be done on either side. You appear not to be wedded to your own opinion, but open to farther conviction. I would willingly be of the same temper; not obstinately attached to either side of the question. I am clearly satisfied of the necessity of this--a willingness to see what as yet I see not. For I know an unwillingness to be convinced would utterly blind either you or me; and that if we are resolved to retain our present opinion, reason and argument signify nothing. 2. I shall not therefore think it is time or pains misemployed, to give the whole cause a second hearing; to recite the occasion of every step I have taken, and the motives inducing me so to do; and then to consider whatsoever either you or others have urged on the contrary side of the question.

16. If you are sincere in this plea, if you do not talk of your health while the real objection is your inclination, make a fair trial thus: (1) Take half a pint of milk every morning, with a little bread, not boiled, but warmed only; a man in tolerable health might double the quantity. (2) If this is too heavy, add as much water, and boil it together, with a spoonful of oatmeal. (3) If this agrees not, try half a pint, or a little more, of water-gruel, neither thick nor thin; not sweetened, for that may be apt to make him sick, but with a very little butter, salt, and bread. (4) If this disagrees, try sage, green balm, mint, or pennyroyal tea, infusing only so much of the herb as just to change the colour of the water. (5) Try two or three of these mixed in various proportions. (6) Try ten or twelve other English herbs. (7) Try foltron, a mixture of herbs to be had at many grocers', far healthier as well as cheaper than tea. (8) Try cocoa. If, after having tried each of these for a week or ten days, you find none of them will agree with your constitution, then use (weak green) tea again; but at the same time know that your having used it so long has brought you near the chambers of death. 17. II. 'I do not know,' says another, 'but tea may hurt me: but there is nothing saved by leaving it off; for I am sure other things cost full as much.' I pray, what other things Sack and sugar costs more; and so do ragouts, or pheasants, or ortolans. But what is this to the point We do not say all things are cheaper; but any of the things above mentioned are--at least, if prudently managed. Therefore, if you really desire to save what you can, you will drink tea no more. 18. 'Well, I do not design to buy any more myself; but where others drink it, there is nothing saved by my abstaining.'

I answer: (1) Yes, something is saved, though but little; especially if you tell them before, 'I shall not drink tea.' And many a little, you know, put together will make a great sum. (2) If the whole saved were ever so little, if it were but two mites, when you save this for God and your brethren's sake, it is much. (3) Your example in saving a little now may occasion the saving of more by-and-by. (4) It is not a little advantage which you may reap even now to your own soul, by habituating yourself not to be ashamed of being singular in a good thing; by taking up your cross, and denying yourself even in so small an instance; and by accustoming yourself to act on rational grounds, whether in a little matter or a great. 19. 'But what is saved will be no better employed.' Do you say this with regard to yourself or others If with regard to yourself, it will be your fault if you do not employ it better. I do not say you will, but I am sure you may; and if you do not, it is your own sin and your own shame. If with regard to others, how do you know that it will not be employed better I trust it will. It cannot be denied that it often has and that it always may be. And it is highly probable all who save anything from the best motive will lay it out to the best purpose. 20. 'As to example,' you say, 'I have lately been without hopes of doing any good by it.'

7. From this antagonist you ramble away to another; after a long citation from whom, you subjoin: 'It being agreed, then, that in the original promise there is no intimation of any particular period to which their continuance was limited' (pages 13-14). Sir, you have lost your way. We have as yet nothing to do with their continuance. 'For, till we have learned from those sacred records' (I use your own words) 'what they were and in what manner exerted by the Apostles, we cannot form a proper judgement of those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church; and must consequently dispute at random, as chance or prejudice may prompt us, about things unknown to us' (page 11). Now, sir, if this be true (as without doubt it is), then it necessarily follows that--seeing, from the beginning of your book to the end, you spend not one page to inform either yourself or your readers concerning the nature of these miraculous powers 'as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel'--you dispute throughout the whole 'at random, as chance or prejudice prompts you, about things unknown to you.' 8. Your reply to 'the adversaries of your scheme' (pages 15-27) I may let alone for the present; and the rather, because the arguments used therein will occur again and again. Only I would here take notice of one assertion--'that the miraculous powers conferred on the Apostles themselves were imparted just at the moment of their exertion, and withdrawn again as soon as those particular occasions were served' (page 23). You should not have asserted this, be it true or false, without some stronger proof. 'This, I say, is evident' (ibid.) is not a sufficient proof; nor 'A treatise is prepared on that subject' (page 24). Neither is it proved by that comment of Grotius on our Lord's promise, ['Non omnibus omnia-ita tamen cuilibet credenti tunc data sit admirabilis facultas, quae se, non semper quidem, sed data occasione explicaret' (Grotius in Marcum xvi. 17). ] which, literally translated, runs thus: 'To every believer there was then given some wonderful power, which was to exert itself, not indeed always, but when there was occasion.'

8. But you endeavour to show it is, 'For that surprising confidence,' you say, 'with which the Fathers of the fourth age have affirmed as true what they themselves had forged, or at least knew to be forged' (a little more proof of that), 'makes us suspect that so bold a defiance of truth could not become general at once, but must have been carried gradually to that height by custom and the example of former times' (page 84). It does not appear that it did become general till long after the fourth century. And as this supposition is not sufficiently proved, the inference from it is nothing worth. 9. You say, secondly: 'This age, in which Christianity was established, had no occasion for any miracles. They would not therefore begin to forge miracles at a time when there was no particular temptation to it.' (Ibid.) Yes, the greatest temptation in the world, if they were such men as you suppose. If they were men that would scruple no art or means to enlarge their own credit and authority, they would naturally 'begin to forge miracles' at that time when real miracles were no more. 10. You say, thirdly: 'The later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier, but more learning and less credulity. If these, then, be found either to have forged miracles themselves, or propagated what they knew to be forged, or to have been deluded by the forgeries of others, it must excite the same suspicion of their predecessors.' (Page 85.) I answer: (1) It is not plain that the later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier. Nor (2) That they had less credulity. It seems some of them had much more: witness Hilarion's camel, and smelling a devil or a sinner; though even he was not so quick-scented as St. Pachomius, who (as many believe to this day) could 'smell an heretic at a mile's distance.' (Free Inquiry, pp. 89-90.) But if (3) The earlier Fathers were holier than the later, they were not only less likely to delude others, but (even on Plato's supposition) to be deluded themselves; for they would have more assistance from God.

But pretended miracles, you say, arose thus: 'As the high authority of the apostolic writings excited some of the most learned Christians' (prove that!) 'to forge books under their names; so the great fame of the apostolic miracles would naturally excite some of the most crafty when the Apostles were dead to attempt some juggling tricks in imitation of them. And when these artful pretenders had maintained their ground through the first three centuries, the leading clergy of the fourth understood their interest too well to part with the old plea of miraculous gifts.' (Page 92.) Round assertions indeed! But surely, sir, you do not think that reasonable men will take these for proofs! You are here advancing a charge of the blackest nature. But where are your vouchers Where are the witnesses to support it Hitherto you have not been able to produce one through a course of three hundred years; unless you bring in those heathen, of whose senseless, shameless prejudices you have yourself given so clear an account. But you designed to produce your witnesses in the Free Inquiry a year or two after the Introductory Discourse was published. So you condemn them first, and try them afterwards; you will pass sentence now, and hear the evidence by-and-by! A genuine specimen of that 'impartial regard to truth' which you profess upon all occasions. 13. Another instance of this is in your marginal note: 'The primitive Christians were perpetually reproached for their gross credulity.' They were; but by whom Why, by Jews and heathens. Accordingly the two witnesses you produce here are Celsus the Jew and Julian the apostate. But, lest this should not suffice, you make them confess the charge. 'The Fathers,' your words are, 'defend themselves by saying that they did no more than the philosophers had always done; that Pythagoras's precepts were inculcated with an ipse dixit, and they found the same method useful with the vulgar' (page 93). And is this their whole defence Do the very men to whom you refer, Origen and Arnobius, in the very tracts to which you refer, give no other answer than this argument ad hominem Stand this as another genuine proof of Dr. Middleton's candour and impartiality!

14. A farther proof of your 'frank and open nature,' and of your 'contenting yourself with the discharge of your own conscience by a free declaration of your real sentiments' (page 40), I find in the very next page. Here you solemnly declare: 'Christianity is confirmed by the evidence of such miracles as, of all others on record, are the least liable to exception, and carry the clearest marks of their sincerity; being wrought by Christ and His Apostles for an end so great, so important, as to be highly worthy the interposition of the Deity; wrought by mean and simple men, and delivered by eye-witnesses, whose characters exclude the suspicion of fraud' (page 94). Sir, do you believe one word of what you so solemnly declare You have yourself declared the contrary. But if you do not, where shall we have you Or how can we believe you another time How shall we know, I will not say, when you speak truth, but when you would have us think you do By what criterion shall we distinguish between what is spoken in your real and what in your personated character how discern when you speak as Dr. Middleton and when as the public librarian 14. You go on: 'By granting the Romanists but a single age of miracles after the Apostles, we shall be entangled in difficulties, whence we can never extricate ourselves till we allow the same powers to the present age' (page 96). I will allow them, however, three ages of miracles, and let them make what advantage of it they can.

You begin with the apostolic Fathers--that is, those who lived and conversed with the Apostles. 'There are several,' you say, 'of this character, whose writings still remain to us: St. Barnabas, St. Clemens, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Hermas. Now, if those gifts had subsisted after the days of the Apostles, these must have possessed a large share of them. But if any of them had, he would have mentioned it in his writings, which not one of them has done.' (Page 3.) The argument, fully proposed, runs thus: If any such gifts had subsisted in them or in their days, they must have mentioned them in their circular Epistles to the Churches (for so their predecessors, the Apostles, did); but they did not mention any such gifts therein. Sir, your consequence is not of any force; as will easily appear by a parallel argument: If such gifts had subsisted in St. Peter or in his days, he must have mentioned them in his circular Epistles to the Churches. But he does not mention any such gifts therein; therefore they did not subsist in him or in his days. Your argument, therefore, proves too much; nor can it conclude against an apostolic Father without concluding against the Apostle too. If, therefore, the apostolic Fathers had not mentioned any miraculous gifts in their circular Epistles to the Churches, you could not have inferred that they possessed none; since neither does he mention them in his circular Epistles whom you allow to have possessed them. Of all the Apostles you can produce but one, St. Paul, who makes mention of these gifts: and that not in his circular Epistles to the Churches; for I know not that he wrote any such.

7. But it would have been strange, if you had not somewhere brought in the famous phoenix of Clemens Romanus. And yet you are very merciful upon that head, barely remarking concerning it that 'he alleged the ridiculous story of the phoenix as a type and proof of the resurrection. Whether all the heathen writers treat it as nothing else but a mere fable I know not.' (Page 55.) But that it is so is certain, and consequently the argument drawn from it is weak and inconclusive. Yet it will not hence follow either that Clemens was a wicked man or that he had none of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. 8. There is no real blemish to be found in the whole character of St. Polycarp. But there is one circumstance left upon record concerning him which has the appearance of weakness. And with this you do not fail to acquaint your reader at a convenient season--namely, 'that in the most ancient dispute concerning the time of holding Easter, St. Polycarp and Anicetus severally alleged apostolic tradition for their different practice' (page 60). And it is not improbable that both alleged what was true; that in a point of so little importance the Apostles varied themselves, some of them observing it on the fourteenth day of the moon, and others not. But, be this as it may, it can be no proof either that Polycarp was not an holy man or that he was not favoured with the extraordinary as well as ordinary gifts of the Spirit.

I was not aware that you had begun 'to throw together all which the Fathers have delivered concerning the persons said to have been endued with those extraordinary gifts.' And it seems you have made an end of it! And accordingly you proceed to sum up the evidence, to 'observe, upon the whole, from these characters of the primitive wonder-workers, as given both by friends and enemies, we may fairly conclude that the gifts of those ages were generally engrossed by private Christians who travelled about from city to city to assist the ordinary preachers in the conversion of Pagans by the extraordinary miracles they pretended to perform' (page 24). 8. 'Characters given both by friends and enemies' I Pray, sir, what friends have you cited for this character or what enemies, except only Celsus the Jew (And you are a miserable interpreter for him.) So, from the single testimony of such a witness, you lay it down as an oracular truth that all the miracle-workers of the first three ages were 'mere vagabonds and common cheats,' rambling about from city to city to assist in converting heathens by tricks and imposture! And this you ingeniously call 'throwing together all which the Fathers have delivered concerning them'!

10. 'These things,' you add, 'are so strange, as to give just reason to suspect that there was some original fraud in the case, and that those strolling wonder-workers by a dexterity of juggling imposed upon the pious Fathers, whose strong prejudices and ardent zeal for the interest of Christianity would dispose them to embrace without examination whatever seemed to promote so good a cause' (page 25). You now speak tolerably plain, and would be much disappointed if those who have no 'strong prejudices for Christianity' did not apply what you say of these 'strolling wonder-workers' to the Apostles as well as their successors. 11. A very short answer will suffice: 'These things are so strange.' They are more strange than true. You have not proved one jot or tittle of them yet; therefore the consequences you draw must fall to the ground till you find them some better support. 12. Nay, but 'it is certain and notorious,' you say, 'that this was really the case in some instances'--that is, that 'strolling, juggling wonder-workers imposed upon the pious Fathers' (page 26). Sir, I must come in again with my cuckoo's note,--The proof! where is the proof Till this is produced, I cannot allow that 'this is certain and notorious' even in one individual instance. 13. Let us now stand still and observe what it is you have made out under this second head. What you proposed was 'to throw together all which the primitive Fathers had delivered concerning the persons said to be then endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.' And how have you executed what you proposed You have thrown together a quotation from a Jew, two from heathens, three-quarters of a line from Origen, and three lines from Tertullian! Nothing at all, it is true, to the point in question. But that you could not help. 14. And this, it seems, is 'all you have been able to draw from any of the primitive writers concerning the persons who were endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost'! (Page 21.) Permit me, sir, to apply to you what was spoken on another occasion: 'Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with'--neither sufficient skill, nor industry and application. Besides, you are resolved to draw out of the well what was never in it, and must of course lose all your labour.

7. You charge him, thirdly, with 'treating the spurious books, published under the names of the Sibyl and Hystespes, with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures' (page 33). His words are: 'By the power of evil spirits it was made death to read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl, or of the Prophets.' Well; how does this prove that he treated those books with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures 'But it is certain,' you say, 'that from this example and authority of Justin they were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and rulers of the Church through all succeeding ages' (ibid.). I do not conceive it is certain. I wait your proof, first of the fact, next of the reason you assign for it. The fact itself, that 'these books were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and rulers through all succeeding ages,' is in no wise proved by that single quotation from Clemens Alexandrinus, wherein he urges the heathens with the testimonies of their own authors, of the Sibyl and of Hystaspes (page 34). We cannot infer from hence that he himself held them 'in the highest veneration'; much less that all the Fathers did. And as to the reason you assign for that veneration--the example and authority of Justin--you cite no writer of any kind, good or bad. So he that will believe it may. But some, you tell us, 'impute the forging these books to Justin.' Be pleased to tell us likewise who those are, and what grounds they allege for that imputation. Till then, it can be of no signification. 8. You charge him, fourthly, 'with believing that silly story concerning the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, with saying that he himself when at Alexandria saw the remains of the cells in which the translators were shut up, and with making a considerable mistake in the chronology relating thereto' (page 37). And if all this be allowed, and, over and above, that he 'frequently cites apocryphal books and cites the Scriptures by memory,' what have you gained toward the proof of your grand conclusion--that 'he was either too great a fool or too great a knave to be believed touching a plain matter of fact'

9. You seem sensible of this, and therefore add, fifthly: 'It will be said, perhaps, that these instances show a weakness of judgement, but do not touch the credit of Justin as a witness of fact' (page 29). But can you scrape up nothing from all the dunghills of antiquity that does I dare say you will do your utmost. And, first, you reply: 'The want of judgement alone may in some cases disqualify a man from being a good witness. Thus Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells. And so he was by those who told him there was a statue at Rome inscribed " Simoni Deo Sancto," whereas it was really inscribed " Semoni Sanco Deo," to an old deity of the Sabines. Now,' say you, 'if he was deceived in such obvious facts, how much more easily would he be deceived by subtle and crafty impostors!' (Pages 40-1.) Far less easily. A man of good judgement may be deceived in the inscriptions of statues and points of ancient history. But, if he has only eyes and ears and a small degree of common sense, he cannot be deceived in facts where he is both an eye-and ear witness. 10. For a parting blow you endeavour to prove, sixthly, that Justin was a knave as well as a fool. To this end you remark that 'he charges the Jews with erasing three passages out of the Greek Bible; one whereof stands there still, and the other two were not expunged by some Jew, but added by some Christian. Nay, that able critic and divine, John Croius [Jean Croius or De Croi, Protestent Minister of Usez, wrote theological works in Latin; he died in 1659.]' (you know when to bestow honourable appellations), 'says Justin forged and published this passage for the confirmation of the Christian doctrine, as well as the greatest part of the Sibylline oracles and the sentences of Mercurius.' (Page 42.)

And yet this opinion, as you know full well, has its foundation, not only in the histories of all ages and all nations throughout the habitable world, even where Christianity never obtained, but particularly in Scripture--in abundance of passages both of the Old and New Testament, as where the Israelites were expressly commanded not to 'suffer a witch to live' (ibid.); where St. Paul numbers 'witchcraft' with 'the works of the flesh' (Gal. v. 19-20), and ranks it with adultery and idolatry; and where St. John declares, 'Without are sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers' (Rev. xxii. 15). That the gods of the heathens are devils (1 Cor. x. 30) is declared in terms by one of those who are styled inspired writers. And many conceive that another of them gives us a plain instance of their 'assuming the form of those who were called from the dead' (1 Sam. xxviii. 13-14). Of the power of evil spirits to afflict the minds of men none can doubt who believe there are any such beings. And of their power to afflict the body we have abundant proof both in the history of Job and that of the Gospel demoniacs. I do not mean, sir, to accuse you of believing these things: you have shown that you are guiltless in this matter; and that you pay no more regard to that antiquated book the Bible than you do to the Second Book of Esdras. But, alas! the Fathers were not so far enlightened. And because they were bigoted to that old book, they of consequence held for truth what you assure us was mere delusion and imposture.

These have been answered at large: some of them proved to be false; some, though true, yet not invalidating their evidence. But, supposing we waive the evidence of these two, here are seven more still to come. Oh, but you say: 'If there were twice seven, they only repeat the words which these have taught them.' You say; but how often must you be reminded that saying and proving are two things I grant in three or four opinions some (though not all) of these were mistaken as well as those two. But this by no means proves that they were all knaves together; or that, if Justin Martyr or Irenaeus speaks wrong, I am therefore to give no credit to the evidence of Theophilus or Minutius Felix. 23. You have therefore made a more lame piece of work on this head, if possible, than on the preceding. You have promised great things, and performed just nothing. You have left above three parts in four of your work entirely untouched; as these two are not a fourth part even of the writers you have named as attesting the continuance of the 'extraordinary gifts' after the age of the Apostles. But you have taught that trick at least to your 'vagrant jugglers' to supply the defect of all other arguments. At every dead lift you are sure to play upon us these dear creatures of your own imagination. They are the very strength of your battle, your tenth legion. Yet, if a man impertinently calls for proof of their existence, if he comes close and engages them hand to hand, they immediately vanish away. IV. You are, in the fourth place, to 'review all the several kinds of miraculous gifts which are pretended to have been given, and to observe from the nature of each how far they may reasonably be suspected' (page 72). 'These,' you say, 'are (1) the power of raising the dead; (2) of healing the sick; (3) of casting out devils; (4) of prophesying; (5) of seeing visions; (6) of discovering the secrets of men; (7) expounding the Scriptures; (8) of speaking with tongues.' I had rather have had an account of the miraculous powers as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel. But that account you are not inclined to give. So we will make the best of what we have.

Section I. 1. And, first, as to 'raising the dead.' Irenaeus affirms: 'This was frequently performed on necessary occasions; when, by great fastings and the joint supplication of the Church, the spirit of the dead person returned into him, and the man was given back to the prayers of the saints' (ibid.). 2. But you object: 'There is not an instance of this to be found in the first three centuries' (ibid.). I presume you mean no heathen historian has mentioned it; for Christian historians were not. I answer: (1) It is not probable an heathen historian would have related such a fact had he known it. (2) It is equally improbable he should know it: seeing the Christians knew with whom they had to do; and that, had such an instance been made public, they would not long have enjoyed him who had been given back to their prayers. They could not but remember what had been before, when the Jews sought Lazarus also to kill him: a very obvious reason why a miracle of this particular kind ought not to have been published abroad;--especially considering (3) that it was not designed for the conversion of the heathens; but 'on occasions necessary' for the good of the Church, of the Christian community. (4) It was a miracle proper, above all others, to support and confirm the Christians, who were daily tortured and slain, but sustained by the hope of obtaining a better resurrection. 3. You object, secondly: 'The heathens constantly affirmed the thing itself to be impossible' (page 73). They did so. But is it 'a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead'

2. Of this you seem not insensible already, and therefore fly away to your favourite supposition that 'they were not cured at all, that the whole matter was a cheat from the beginning to the end.' But by what arguments do you evince this The first is, 'The heathens pretended to do the same'; nay, and 'managed the imposture with so much art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it, but insisted always that it was performed by demons or evil spirits' (ibid.). But still the heathens maintained, 'the cures were wrought by their gods--by Aesculapius in particular.' And where is the difference seeing, as was observed before, 'the gods of the heathens were but devils.' 3. But you say, 'Although public monuments were erected in proof and memory of these cures at the time when they were performed, yet it is certain all those heathen miracles were pure forgeries' (page 79). How is it certain If you can swallow this without good proof, you are far more credulous than I. I cannot believe that the whole body of the heathens for so many generations were utterly destitute of common sense any more than of common honesty. Why should you fix such a charge on whole cities and countries You could have done no more, if they had been Christians!

4. But 'diseases thought fatal and desperate are oft surprisingly healed of themselves.' And, therefore, 'we cannot pay any great regard to such stories, unless we knew more precisely in this case the real bounds between nature and miracle' (ibid.). Sir, I understand you well. The drift of the argument is easily seen. It points at the Master as well as His servants; and tends to prove that, after all this talk about miraculous cures, we are not sure there were ever any in the world. But it will do no harm. For although we grant (1) that some recover even in seemingly desperate cases, and (2) that we do not know in any case the precise bounds between nature and miracle; yet it does not follow, Therefore I cannot be assured there ever was a miracle of healing in the world. To explain this by instance: I do not precisely know how far nature can go in healing, that is, restoring sight to the blind; yet this I assuredly know--that, if a man born blind is restored to sight by a word, this is not nature, but miracle. And to such a story, well attested, all reasonable men will pay the highest regard. 5. The sum of what you have advanced on this head is (1) that the heathens themselves had miraculous cures among them; (2) that oil may cure some diseases by its natural efficacy; and (3) that we do not know the precise bounds of nature. All this I allow. But all this will not prove that no miraculous cures were performed either by our Lord and His Apostles or by those who lived in the three succeeding centuries. Section III. 1. The third of the miraculous powers said to have been in the primitive Church is that of casting out devils. The testimonies concerning this are out of number and as plain as words can make them. To show, therefore, that all these signify nothing, and that there were never any devils cast out at all, neither by the Apostles nor since the Apostles (for the argument proves both or neither), is a task worthy of you. And, to give you your just praise, you have here put forth all your strength.

3. But 'leaders of sects,' you say, 'whatever principles they pretend to, have seldom scrupled to use a commodious lie' (page 83). I observe you are quite impartial here. You make no exception of age or nation. It is all one to you whether your reader applies this to the son of Abdallah or the Son of Mary. And yet, sir, I cannot but think there was a difference. I fancy the Jew was an honester man than the Arabian; and though Mahomet used many a commodious lie, yet Jesus of Nazareth did not. 4. However, 'Not one of these Fathers made any scruple of using the hyperbolical style' (that is, in plain English, of lying), 'as an eminent writer of ecclesiastical history declares' (ibid.). You should have said an impartial writer. For who would scruple that character to Mr. Le Clerc And yet I cannot take either his or your bare word for this. Be pleased to produce a little proof. Hitherto you have proved absolutely nothing on the head, but (as your manner is) taken all for granted. 5. You next relate that famous story from Tertullian: 'A woman went to the theatre, and returned possessed with a devil. When the unclean spirit was asked how he dared to assault a Christian, he answered, " I found her on my own ground."' (Ibid.) After relating another, which you endeavour to account for naturally, you intimate that this was a mere lie of Tertullian's. But how is that proved Why, 'Tertullian was an utter enemy to plays and public shows in the theatre.' He was so; but can we infer from thence that he was an utter enemy to common honesty 6. You add: 'The Fathers themselves own that even the Jews, yea, and the heathens, cast out devils. Now, it will be granted that these Jewish and heathen exorcists were mere cheats and impostors. But the Fathers believed they really cast them out. Now, if they could take their tricks for the effects of a supernatural power, well might they be deceived by their own impostors. Or they might think it convenient to oppose one cheat to another.' (Pages 84, 87-8.)

'Deceived,' say you, 'by their own impostors' Why, I thought they were the very men who set them to work! who opposed one cheat to another! Apt scholars, who acted their part so well as even to deceive their masters! But, whatever the heathen were, we cannot grant that all the 'Jewish exorcists were impostors.' Whether the heathens cast out devils or not, it is sure the sons of the Jews cast them out. I mean, upon supposition, that Jesus of Nazareth cast them out; which is a point not here to be disputed. 7. But 'it is very hard to believe what Origen declares, that the devils used to possess and destroy cattle.' You might have said what Matthew and Mark declare concerning the herd of swine; and yet we shall find you by-and-by believing far harder things than this. Before you subjoined the silly story of Hilarion and his camel, [St. Jerome says in his Vita Hilarions Eremitae that a raging camel, who had already trampled on many, was brought with ropes by more than thirty men to Hilarion. Its eyes were bloody, its mouth foaming. Hilarion dismissed the men; and when the camel would have rushed on him, he stretched out his hands and said, 'Thou wilt not terrify me, O devil, with thy vast body; both in the little fox and in the camel thou art one and the same.' The camel fell humbly at his feet with the devil cast out. Kingsley does not give this story in The Hermits.] you should in candour have informed your reader that it is disputed whether the life of Hilarion was wrote by St. Jerome or no. But, be it as it may, I have no concern for either; for they did not live within the first three ages. 8. I know not what you have proved hitherto, though you have affirmed many things and intimated more. But now we come to the strength of the cause contained in your five observations.

Well collected indeed! But I desire a little better testimony than either that of Philo the Jew, or Suidas a lexicographer of the eleventh century, before I believe this. How little Tertullian is to be regarded on this head you yourself show in the very next page. 3. You say, fourthly: 'Montanus and his associates were the authors of these trances. They first raised this spirit of enthusiasm in the Church, and acquired great credit by their visions and ecstasies.' Sir, you forget: they did not 'raise this spirit,' but rather Joel and St. Peter; according to whose words the 'young men saw visions' before Montanus was born. 4. You observe, fifthly, how Tertullian was 'imposed upon by the craft of ecstatic visionaries' (page 99), and then fall upon Cyprian with all your might: your objections to whom we shall now consider. And, first, you lay it down as a postulatum that he was 'fond of power and episcopal authority' (page 101). I cannot grant this, sir: I must have some proof; else this and all you infer from it will go for nothing. You say, secondly: 'In all questionable points of doctrine or discipline, which he had a mind to introduce into the Christian worship, we find him constantly appealing to the testimony of visions and divine revelations. Thus he says to Caecilius that he was divinely admonished to mix water with wine in the sacrament in order to render it effectual.' You set out unhappily enough. For this can never be a proof of Cyprian's appealing to visions and revelations in order to introduce questionable points of doctrine or discipline into the Christian worship; because this point was unquestionable, and could not then be 'introduced into the Christian worship,' having had a constant place therein, as you yourself have showed (Introductory Discourse, p. 57), at least from the time of Justin Martyr. Indeed, neither Justin nor Cyprian use those words, 'in order to render it effectual.' They are an ingenious and honest addition of your own, in order to make something out of nothing.

13. From Justin Martyr also you cite but part of a sentence. He speaks very nearly thus: 'That the Spirit of God, descending from heaven, and using righteous men as the quill strikes the harp or lyre, may reveal unto us the knowledge of divine and heavenly things.' And does Justin expressly affirm in these words that all the Prophets were 'transported out of their senses' Tertullian's words are: 'A man being in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, must needs lose sense.' ['Necesse est, excidat sensu.'] Now, as it is not plain that he means hereby 'lose his understanding' (it being at least equally probable that he intends no more than losing for the time the use of his outward senses), neither can it be said that Tertullian expressly affirms, 'The Prophets were all out of their senses.' Therefore you have not so much as one Father to vouch for what you say was 'the current opinion in those days.' 14. I doubt not but all men of learning will observe a circumstance which holds throughout all your quotations. The strength of your argument constantly lies in a loose and paraphrastical manner of translating. The strength of mine lies in translating all in the most close and literal manner; so that closeness of translation strengthens mine in the same proportion as it weakens your arguments: a plain proof of what you elsewhere observe, that you use 'no subtle refinements or forced constructions' (Preface, p. 31). 15. But to return to Cyprian. 'I cannot forbear,' you say, 'relating two or three more of his wonderful stories. The first is, A man who had denied Christ was presently struck dumb: the second, A woman who had done so was seized by an unclean spirit, and soon after died in great anguish: the third, of which he says he was an eye-witness, is this,--The heathen magistrates gave to a Christian infant part of what had been offered to an idol. When the deacon forced the consecrated wine on this child, it was immediately seized with convulsions and vomiting; as was a woman who had apostatized, upon taking the consecrated elements.' (Pages 112-13.) The other two relations Cyprian does not affirm of his own personal knowledge.

3. 'But no other Father has made the least claim to it' (page 120). Perhaps none of those whose writings are now extant--at least, not in those writings which are extant. But what are these in comparison of those which are lost And how many were burning and shining lights within three hundred years after Christ who wrote no account of themselves at all--at least, none which has come to our hands But who are they that speak of it as a gift peculiar to the times of the Apostles You say, 'There is not a single Father who ventures to speak of it in any other manner' (ibid.). Well, bring but six Ante-Nicene Fathers who speak of it in this manner, and I will give up the whole point. 4. But you say, 'After the apostolic times there is not in all history one instance even so much as mentioned of any particular person who ever exercised this gift' (ibid.). You must mean either that the heathens have mentioned no instance of this kind (which is not at all surprising), or that Irenaeus does not mention the names of those many persons who in his time exercised this gift. And this also may be allowed without affecting in any wise the credibility of his testimony concerning them. 5. I must take notice here of another of your postulatums which leads you into many mistakes. With regard to past ages, you continually take this for granted: 'What is not recorded was not done.' But this is by no means a self-evident axiom--nay, possibly it is not true. For there may be many reasons in the depth of the wisdom of God for His doing many things at various times and places, either by His natural or supernatural power, which were never recorded at all. And abundantly more were recorded once, and that with the fullest evidence, whereof, nevertheless, we find no certain evidence now, at the distance of fourteen hundred years.

6. Perhaps this may obtain in the very case before us. Many may have spoken with new tongues of whom this is not recorded--at least, the records are lost in a course of so many years. Nay, it is not only possible that it may be so, but it is absolutely certain that it is so: and you yourself must acknowledge it; for you acknowledge that the Apostles when in strange countries spoke with strange tongues--that St. John, for instance, when in Asia Minor, St. Peter when in Italy (if he was really there), and the other Apostles when in other countries, in Parthia, Media Phrygia, Pamphylia, spoke each to the natives of each in their own tongues the wonderful works of God. And yet there is no authentic record of this: there is not in all history one well-attested instance of any particular Apostle's exercising this gift in any country whatsoever. Now, sir, if your axiom were allowed, what would be the ,consequence Even that the Apostles themselves no more spoke with tongues than any of their successors. 7. I need, therefore, take no trouble about your subsequent reasonings, seeing they are built on such a foundation. Only I must observe an historical mistake which occurs toward the bottom of your next page. Since the Reformation, you say, 'this gift has never once been heard of or pretended to by the Romanists themselves' (page 122). But has it been pretended to (whether justly or not) by no others, though not by the Romanists Has it 'never once been heard of' since that time Sir, your memory fails you again: it has undoubtedly been pretended to, and that at no great distance either from our time or country. It has been heard of more than once no farther off than the valleys of Dauphiny. Nor is it yet fifty years ago since the Protestant inhabitants of those valleys so loudly pretended to this and other miraculous powers as to give much disturbance to Paris itself. And how did the King of France confute that presence and prevent its being heard any more Not by the pen of his scholars, but by (a truly heathen way) the swords and bayonets of his dragoons.

Might it not be well, sir, not to be quite so sure yet You may not always have the laugh on your side. You are not yet infallibly assured but that even Protestantism may produce something worth an answer. There may be some Protestants, for aught you know, who have a few grains of common sense left, and may find a way to defend, at least the Ante-Nicene Fathers, without 'disgracing their own character.' Even such an one as I have faintly attempted this; although I neither have, nor expect to have, any preferment, not even to be a Lambeth chaplain, which if Dr. Middleton is not, it is not his own fault. V. 1. The last thing you proposed was 'to refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.' To what you have offered on this head I must likewise attempt a short reply. You say: 'It is objected, first, that, by the character I have given of the Fathers, the authority of the books of the New Testament, which were transmitted to us through their hands, will be rendered precarious and uncertain' (page 190). After a feint of confuting it, you frankly acknowledge the whole of this objection. 'I may venture,' you say, 'to declare that, if this objection be true, it cannot hurt my argument. For if it be natural and necessary that the craft and credulity of witnesses should always detract from the credit of their testimony, then who can help it And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.' (Page 192.) 'If it be proved'! Very true. If that charge against the Fathers were really and substantially proved, the authority of the New Testament would be at an end so far as it depends on one kind of evidence. But that charge is not proved. Therefore even the traditional authority of the New Testament is as firm as ever. 2. 'It is objected,' you say, 'secondly, that all suspicion of fraud in the case of the primitive miracles is excluded by that public appeal and challenge which the Christian apologists make to their enemies the heathens to come and see with their own eyes the reality of the facts which they attest' (page 193).

No: I conceive the improbability supposed lies wholly on the other side. Whatever the Government of heathen Rome was (which I presume you will not depreciate), the Government of England is remarkable for tenderness to the very meanest subject. It is, therefore, not improbable in the least that an address from some thousands of those subjects, how contemptible soever they were generally esteemed, would not be totally disregarded by such a Government. But that they should 'not know that any such had been addressed to them' is not only improbable but morally impossible. If, therefore, it were possible for the heathens to 'have a worse opinion of the ancient Christians than we,' you say, 'have of our modern fanatics,' still it is utterly incredible that the Roman Government should, not only 'take no notice of their apologies,' but 'not even know that any such were addressed to them.' 4. 'But the publishing books was more expensive then than it is now; and therefore we cannot think the Christians of those days were able to provide such a number of them as was sufficient for the information of the public' (pages 198-9). Nay, if they were not able to provide themselves food and raiment, they would be sure to provide a sufficient number of these-sufficient, at least, for the information of the Emperor and Senate, to whom those apologies were addressed. And how great a number, do you suppose, might suffice for them How many hundred or thousand copies I apprehend the Emperor would be content with one; and one more would be needful for the Senate. Now, I really believe the Christians of those days were able to provide both these copies--nay, and even two more, if it should have fallen out that two or three Emperors were on the throne; even though we should suppose that in Tertullian's time there were but forty thousand of them in all Rome.

We have been long disputing about Christians, about Christianity, and the evidence whereby it is supported. But what do these terms mean Who is a Christian indeed What is real, genuine Christianity And what is the surest and most accessible evidence (if I may so speak) whereby I may know that it is of God May the God of the Christians enable me to speak on these heads in a manner suitable to the importance of them! Section I. 1. I would consider, first, Who is a Christian indeed What does that term properly imply It has been so long abused, I fear, not only to mean nothing at all, but (what was far worse than nothing) to be a cloak for the vilest hypocrisy, for the grossest abominations and immoralities of every kind, that it is high time to rescue it out of the hands of wretches that are a reproach to human nature, to show determinately what manner of man he is to whom this name of right belongs. 2. A Christian cannot think of the Author of his being without abasing himself before Him, without a deep sense of the distance between a worm of earth and Him that sitteth on the circle of the heavens. In His presence he sinks into the dust, knowing himself to be less than nothing in His eye, and being conscious, in a manner words cannot express, of his own littleness, ignorance, foolishness. So that he can only cry out from the fullness of his heart, 'O God I what is man what am I'

8. Now, how highly desirable is such a faith, were it only on its own account! For how little does the wisest of men know of anything more than he can see with his eyes! What clouds and darkness cover the whole scene of things invisible and eternal! What does he know even of himself as to his invisible part what of his future manner of existence How melancholy an account does the prying, learned philosopher (perhaps the wisest and best of all heathens), the great, the venerable Marcus Antoninus, give of these things! What was the result of all his serious researches, of his high and deep contemplations 'Either dissipation, of the soul as well as the body, into the common, unthinking mass; or reabsorption into the universal fire, the unintelligent source of all things; or some unknown manner of conscious existence after the body sinks to rise no more.' One of these three he supposed must succeed death; but which he had no light to determine. Poor Antoninus! With all his wealth, his honour, his power; with all his wisdom and philosophy,-- What points of knowledge did he gain That life is sacred all-and vain: Sacred, how high, and vain, how low He could not tell, but died to know.' [Gambold's Epitaph: where in line 2 it is 'was,' not 'is'; and line 4 'He knew not here, but dy'd to know.'] 9. He 'died to know'! And so must you, unless you are now a partaker of Christian faith. O consider this! Nay, and consider, not only how little you know of the immensity of the things that are beyond sense and time, but how uncertainly do you know even that little! How faintly glimmering a light is that you have! Can you properly be said to know any of these things Is that knowledge any more than bare conjecture And the reason is plain. You have no senses suitable to invisible or eternal objects. What desiderata, then, especially to the rational, the reflecting part of mankind, are these,--a more extensive knowledge of things invisible and eternal, a greater certainty in whatever knowledge of them we have, and (in order to both) faculties capable of discerning things invisible!

10. Is it not so Let impartial reason speak. Does not every thinking man want a window, not so much in his neighbour's as in his own breast He wants an opening there, of whatever kind, that might let in light from eternity. He is pained to be thus feeling after God so darkly, so uncertainly; to know so little of God, and indeed so little of any beside material objects. He is concerned that he must see even that little, not directly, but in the dim, sullied glass of sense; and consequently so imperfectly and obscurely that it is all a mere enigma still. 11. Now, these very desiderata faith supplies. It gives a more extensive knowledge of things invisible, showing what eye had not seen, nor ear heard, neither could it before enter into our heart to conceive. And all these it shows in the clearest light, with the fullest certainty and evidence. For it does not leave us to receive our notices of them by mere reflection from the dull glass of sense; but resolves a thousand enigmas of the highest concern by giving faculties suited to things invisible. Oh who would not wish for such a faith, were it only on these accounts! How much more, if by this I may receive the promise, I may attain all that holiness and happiness! 12. So Christianity tells me; and So I find it, may every real Christian say. I now am assured that these things are so: I experience them in my own breast. What Christianity (considered as a doctrine) promised is accomplished in my soul. And Christianity, considered as an inward principle, is the completion of all those promises. It is holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit, a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life. Section III. 1. And this I conceive to be the strongest evidence of the truth of Christianity. I do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind and in its degree. And yet I cannot set it on a level with this.

It is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time, as it must necessarily pass through so many hands in a continued succession of ages. But no length of time can possibly affect the strength of this internal evidence. It is equally strong, equally new, through the course of seventeen hundred years. It passes now, even as it has done from the beginning, directly from God into the believing soul. Do you suppose time will ever dry up this stream Oh no! It shall never be cut off: Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis aevum. [Horace's Epistles, I. ii. 43: 'It flows and will for ever flow.'] 2. Traditional evidence is of an extremely complicated nature, necessarily including so many and so various considerations, that only men of a strong and clear understanding can be sensible of its full force. On the contrary, how plain and simple is this! and how level to the lowest capacity! Is not this the sum--'One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see'! An argument so plain, that a peasant, a woman, a child may feel all its force. 3. The traditional evidence of Christianity stands, as it were, a great way off; and therefore, although it speaks loud and clear, yet makes a less lively impression. It gives us an account of what was transacted long ago in far distant times as well as places. Whereas the inward evidence is intimately present to all persons at all times and in all places. It is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, if thou believes" in the Lord Jesus Christ. 'This,' then, 'is the record,' this is the evidence, emphatically so called, 'that God hath given unto us eternal life; and this life is in His Son.'

4. If, then, it were possible (which I conceive it is not) to shake the traditional evidence of Christianity, still he that has the internal evidence (and every true believer hath the witness or evidence in himself) would stand firm and unshaken. Still he could say to those who were striking at the external evidence, 'Beat on the sack of Anaxagoras.' [Anaxagoras (500-458 B.C,), the most illustrious of the Ionic philosophers, had Euripides, Pericles, and possibly Socrates, in his philosophical school at Athens. He thought that all bodies were composed of atoms shaped by nous, or mind. He was indicted for impiety, and was only saved from death by the influence and eloquence of Pericles.] But you can no more hurt my evidence of Christianity than the tyrant could hurt the spirit of that wise man. 5. I have sometimes been almost inclined to believe that the wisdom of God has in most later ages permitted the external evidence of Christianity to be more or less clogged and encumbered for this very end, that men (of reflection especially) might not altogether rest there, but be constrained to look into themselves also and attend to the light shining in their hearts. Nay, it seems (if it may be allowed for us to pry so far into the reasons of the divine dispensations) that, particularly in this age, God suffers all kind of objections to be raised against the traditional evidence of Christianity, that men of understanding, though unwilling to give it up, yet, at the same time they defend this evidence, may not rest the whole strength of their cause thereon, but seek a deeper and firmer support for it. 6. Without this I cannot but doubt, whether they can long maintain their cause; whether, if they do not obey the loud call of God, and lay far more stress than they have hitherto done on this internal evidence of Christianity, they will not one after another give up the external, and (in heart at least) go over to those whom they are now contending with; so that in a century or two the people of England will be fairly divided into real Deists and real Christians.

9. Oh that the time were come! How do I long for you to be partakers of the exceeding great and precious promise! How am I pained when I hear any of you using those silly terms which the men of form have taught you, calling the mention of the only thing you want 'cant'! the deepest wisdom, the highest happiness 'enthusiasm'! What ignorance is this! How extremely despicable would it make you in the eyes of any but a Christian! But he cannot despise you who loves you as his own soul, who is ready to lay down his life for your sake. 10. Perhaps you will say, 'But this internal evidence of Christianity affects only those in whom the promise is fulfilled. It is no evidence to me.' There is truth in this objection. It does affect them chiefly, but it does not affect them only. It cannot in the nature of things be so strong an evidence to others as it is to them. And yet it may bring a degree of evidence, it may reflect some light on you also. For (1) You see the beauty and loveliness of Christianity when it is rightly understood, and you are sure there is nothing to be desired in comparison of it. (2) You know the Scripture promises this, and says it is attained by faith, and by no other way. (3) You see clearly how desirable Christian faith is even on account of its own intrinsic value. (4) You are a witness that the holiness and happiness above described can be attained no other way. The more you have laboured after virtue and happiness, the more convinced you are of this. Thus far, then, you need not lean upon other men; thus far you have personal experience.

A fourth is, ‘They meet at midnight.’ (You should say, They sometimes continue till midnight praising God.) ‘They meet at five in the morning, winter and summer.’ Some of them do, and it conduces to bodily as well as spiritual health. ‘They meet twice or thrice more in every day of the year’ Sir, you know they do not. You know the bulk of the Methodists meet only twice on common days; and that most of them do not meet once a day, unless on Sunday. ‘Then their 1ovefeasts and confessing their sins to each other’ Sir you forget you are personating a Christian. You must not now condemn these things in the gross. If you do, the mask drops off. ‘All their other little tricks and rules,’ which you say none but a member can enumerate, are enumerated to your hand in a small tract entitled A Plain Account of the People called Methodists. [See letter in Dec. 1748 to Vincent Perronet.] 12. I am obliged to you for believing that I ‘have no sinister or lucrative views’ in what I do, and that ‘the collections made among us are applied justly to defray the necessary expenses of the Society.’ Yet I grant ‘this does not clear me of enthusiasm.’ But neither do you prove it upon me: no more than ‘the learned and honest Dr. Middleton [See letter of Jan. 4, 1749.] (as you style him) proves it upon ‘the Fathers of the primitive Church.’ How ‘learned’ he may be in other respects I know not. But this I take it upon me to say, either that he is not an ‘honest’ man or that he does not understand Greek. 13. A ‘virtuous and sober’ life (I mean an uniform practice of justice mercy, and truth) I allow is the ‘true test of a good conscience’ of the bring God and all mankind And in this practice I desire to be guided by right reason, under the influence of the Spirit of God. May He lead you and me into all truth! --I am, sir, Your humble servant. To John Bennet [1] LONDON January 23, 1750.

In order to prove this uncommon charge, you produce four scraps of sentences (page 31), which you mark as my words, though, as they stand in your book, they are neither sense nor grammar. But you do not refer to the page or even the treatise where any one of them may be found. Sir, it is well you hide your name, or you would be obliged to hide your face from every man of candor or even common humanity. 13. ‘Sometimes indeed,’ you say, ‘Mr. Wesley complains of the scoffs both of the great vulgar and the small’ (page 32); to prove which you disjoint and murder (as your manner is) another of my sentences. ‘But at other times the note is changed, and “till he is despised no man is in a state of salvation.”’ ‘The note is changed’! How so When did I say otherwise than I do at this day -- namely, ‘that none are children of God but those who are hated or despised by the children of the devil’ I must beg you, sir, in your Third Part to inform your reader that, whenever any solecism or mangled sentences appear in the quotations from my writings, they are not chargeable upon me; that if the sense be mine (which is not always; sometimes you do me too much honor even in this), yet I lay no claim to the manner of expression; the English is all your own. 14. ‘Corporal severities or mortification by tormenting the flesh’ (page 31) is the next thing you charge upon me. Almost two sentences you bring in proof of this. The one, ‘Our bed being wet’ (it was in a storm at sea), ‘I laid me down on the floor, and slept sound till morning; and I believe I shall not find it needful to go to bed, as it is called, any more.’ But whether I do or not, how will you prove that my motive is to ' gain a reputation for sanctity’ I desire (if it be not too great a favor) a little evidence for this.

To put this out of dispute, you go on: ‘Thus faith and being born of God are said to be an instantaneous work, at once, and in a moment, as lightning. Justification, the same as regeneration, and having a lively faith, this always in a moment.’ (Ibid.) I know not which to admire most, the English or the sense, which you here father upon me; but in truth it is all your own: I do not thus confound faith and being born of God. I always speak of them as different things; it is you that thus jumble them together. It is you who discover justification also to be the same as regeneration and having a lively faith. I take them to be three different things -- so different as not ever to come under one genus. And yet it is true that each of these, ‘as far as I know,’ is at first experienced suddenly; although two of them (I leave you to find out which) gradually increase from that hour. 21. ‘After these sudden conversions,’ say you, ‘they receive their assurances of salvation’ (page 43). Sir, Mr. Bedford’s [See letter of Sept. 28, 1738.] ignorance in charging this doctrine upon me might be involuntary, and I am persuaded was real. But yours cannot be so. It must be voluntary, if it is not rather affected. For you had before you while you wrote the very tract wherein I corrected Mr. Bedford's mistake and explicitly declared, ‘The assurance whereof I speak is not an assurance of salvation.’ And the very passages you cite from me prove the same; every one of which (as you yourself know in your own conscience) relates wholly and solely to present pardon, not to future salvation. Of Christian perfection (page 45) I shall not say anything to you, till you have learned a little heathen honesty. 22. That this is a lesson you have not yet learned appears also from your following section, wherein you roundly affirm, ‘Whatever they think, say, or do’ (that is, the Methodists, according to their own account) ‘is from God. And whatever opposeth is from the devil.’ I doubt not but Mr. Church believed this to be true when he asserted it. But this is no plea for you, who, having read the answer to Mr. Church, still assert what you know to be false.

26. As a farther proof of my enthusiasm you mention ‘special directions, mission, and calls by immediate revelation’ (page 67); for an instance of which you cite those words, ‘I know and am assured that God sent forth His light and His truth.’ I did know this. But do I say ‘by immediate revelation’ Not a little about it. This is your own ingenious improvement upon my words. ‘However, it was by a special direction; for your own words in the same paragraph are, “From the direction I received from God this day, touching an affair of the greatest importance”’ (pages 68-9). What, are these words in the same paragraph with those, ‘I know and am assured God sent forth His light and His truth’ Why, then, do you tear the paragraph in two, and put part in your sixty-seventh, part in your sixty-eighth and sixty-ninth pages Oh for a plain reason -- to make it look like two instances of enthusiasm, otherwise it could have made but one at the most! But you cannot make out one till you have proved that these directions were by immediate revelation. I never affirmed they were. I now affirm they were not. Now, sir, make your best of them. You add: ‘Let me mention a few directions coming by way of command. Mr. Wesley says, “I came to Mr. Delamotte's, where I expected a cool reception; but God had prepared the way before me.”’ (Page 69.) What, by a command to Mr. Delamotte Who told you so Not I, nor any one else, only your own fruitful imagination. 27. Your next discovery is more curious still -- that ‘itinerants order what they want at a public-house, and then tell the landlord that he will be damned if he takes anything of them’ (page 69).

‘From those words, “Beloved, believe not every spirit; but try the spirits whether they be of God,” I told them they were not to judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by common report, or by their own inward feelings -- no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revelations, supposed to be made to their souls, any more than by their tears, or any involuntary effects wrought upon their bodies. I warned them all these were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature; they might be from God, and they might not; and were therefore not simply to be relied on, any more than simply to be condemned, but to be tried by a farther rule; to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony.’ Sir, can you show them a better way 32. The last proof that you produce of my enthusiasm is my ‘talking of the great work which God is now beginning to work upon earth' (page 80). I own the fact. I do talk of such a work. But I deny the consequence; for if God has begun a great work, then the saying He has is no enthusiasm. To bring sinners to repentance, to save them from their sins, is allowed by all to be the work of God. Yea, and to save one sinner is a great work of God; much more to save many. But many sinners are saved from their sins at this day in London, in Bristol, in Kingswood, in Cornwall, in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in Whitehaven, in many other parts of England, in Wales, in Ireland, in Scotland, upon the continent of Europe, in Asia, and in America. This I term ‘a great work of God’ -- so great as I have not read of for several ages. You ask how I know so great a work is wrought now - ‘by inspiration’ No; but by common sense. I know it by the evidence of my own eyes and ears. I have seen a considerable part of it; and I have abundant testimony, such as excludes all possible doubt, for what I have not seen.

Charles and you behave as I want you to do; but you cannot or will not preach where I desire. Others can and will preach where I desire; but they do not behave as I want them to do. I have a fine time between the one and the other. [And again in a third:] I think both Charles and you have in the general a right sense of what it is to serve as sons in the gospel; and if all our helpers had had the same, the work of God would have prospered better both in England and Ireland. [About a fortnight afterwards he writes thus on the same subject:] You put the thing right. I have not one preacher with me, and not six in England, whose wills are broken enough to serve me as sons in the gospel. Come on, now. you have broken the ice, and tell me the other half of your mind. I always blamed you for speaking too little, not too much. When you spoke most freely, as at Whitehaven, [In Sept. 1749 (Journal, iii 430.)] it was best for us both. I did not always disbelieve when I said nothing. But I would not attempt a thing till I could carry it. Tu qued scis, nescis is an useful rule, till I can remedy what I know. As you observe many things are remedied already; and many more will be. But you consider I have none to second me. They who should do it start aside as a broken bow. [For the letter of June 8,1750, to the Rev. John Baily, of Kilcully, Cork, see pp. 272-294.] To John Baily [11] LIMERICK, June 8, 1750.

REVEREND SIR, -- 1. Why do you not subscribe your name to a performance so perfectly agreeing both as to the matter and form with the sermons you have been occasionally preaching for more than a year last past As to your seeming to disclaim it by saying once and again, ‘I am but a plain, simple man,’ and ‘The doctrine you teach is only a revival of the old Antinomian heresy, I think they call it,’ I presume it is only a pious fraud. But how came so plain and simple a man to know the meaning of the Greek word Philalethes Sir, this is not of a piece. If you did not care to own your child, had not you better have subscribed the second (as well as the first) letter George Fisher [The letter thus subscribed was published in Cork on May 30, 1750.] 2. I confess you have timed your performance well. When the other pointless thing was published, I came unluckily to Cork on the selfsame day. But you might now suppose I was at a convenient distance. However, I will not plead this as an excuse for taking no notice of your last favor; although, to say the truth, I scarce know how to answer it, as you write in a language I am not accustomed to. Both Dr. Tucker, Dr. Church, and all the other gentlemen who have wrote to me in public for some years have wrote as gentlemen, having some regard to their own, whatever my character was. But as you fight in the dark, you regard not what weapons you use. We are not, therefore, on even terms: I cannot answer you in kind; I am constrained to leave this to your good allies of Blackpool and Fair Lane. [Celebrated parts of Cork.] I shall first state the facts on which the present controversy turns, and then consider the most material parts of your performance. I. I am to state the facts. But here I am under a great disadvantage, having few of my papers by me. Excuse me, therefore, if I do not give so full an account now, as I may possibly do hereafter; if I only give you for the present the extracts of some papers which were lately put into my hands, 1. ' THOMAS JONES, of Cork, merchant, deposes,

2. But, before I proceed, I must beg leave to ask, who is this evidence against the other five Why, one that neither dares show his face nor tell his name or the place of his abode; one that is ashamed (and truly not without cause) of the dirty work he is employed in, so that we could not even conjecture who he was but that his speech bewrayeth him. How much credit is due to such an evidence let any man of reason judge. 3. This worthy witness falls foul upon Mr. Cownley, and miserably murders a tale he has got by the end (page 13). Sir, Mr. M[assiot] is nothing obliged to you for bringing the character of his niece into question. He is perfectly satisfied that Mr. Cownley acted in that whole affair with the strictest regard both to honor and conscience. You next aver that Mr. Reeves ‘asked a young woman whether she had a mind to go to hell with her father’ (page 16). It is possible. I will neither deny nor affirm it without some better proof. But suppose he did; unless I know the circumstances of the case, I could not say whether he spoke right or wrong. 4. But what is this to the ‘monstrous, shocking, amazing blasphemy spoken by Mr. Charles Wesley who one day,’ you say, ‘preaching on Hammond's Marsh, called out, “Has any of you got the Spirit” and when none answered said, “I am sure some of you have got it; for I feel virtue go out of me”’ (page 18). Sir, do you expect any one to believe this story I doubt it will not pass even at Cork; unless with your wise friend who said, ‘Methodists! Aye, they are the people who place all their religion in wearing long whiskers.’ 5. In the same page you attack Mr. Williams for applying those words, ‘I thy Maker am thy husband.’ Sir, by the same rule that you conclude ‘these expressions could only flow from a mind full of lascivious ideas,’ you may conclude the 45th Psalm to be only a wanton sonnet and the Canticles a counterpart to Rochester's poems. [John Wilmot, second Earl of Rochester (1647-80), poet and libertine, friend of Charles II and the second Duke of Buckingham, wrote amorous lyrics.]

3. In order to be more fully informed, on Saturday, August 25, 1750, Mr. Trembath of St. Gennys, Mr. Haime of Shaftesbury, and I called at Mr. Morgan's at Mitchell. The servant telling me her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the ‘honest, sensible woman.’ I immediately asked, ‘Did I ever tell you or your husband that you would be damned if you took any money of me’ (So the story ran in the First Part of the Comparison; it has now undergone a very considerable alteration.) ‘Or did you or he ever affirm’ (another circumstance related at Truro) ‘that I was rude with your maid’ She replied vehemently, ‘Sir, I never said you was or that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But we have been belied as well as our neighbors.’ She added: ‘When the Bishop came down last, he sent us word that he would dine at our house; but he did not, being invited to a neighboring gentleman’s He sent for me thither and said, “Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down Do you know Mr. Wesley Did not he tell you you would be damned if you took any money of him And did not he offer rudeness to your maid” I told him, “No, my Lord; he never said any such thing to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him; but a man told me once (who, I was told, was a Methodist preacher) that I should be damned if I did not know my sins were forgiven.”’ 4. This is her own account given to me. And an account it is irreconcilably different (notwithstanding some small resemblance in the last circumstance) from that she is affirmed to have given your Lordship. Whether she did give that account to your Lordship or no, your Lordship knows best. That the comparer affirms it is no proof at all, since he will affirm anything that suits his purpose.

10. One good effect of my thus meeting him on his own ground is visible already. Instead of endeavoring to defend he entirely gives up the First Part of his Comparison. Indeed, I did not expect this, when I observed that the Third Part was addressed to me. I took it for granted that he had therein aimed at something like a reply to my answer; but, going on, I found myself quite mistaken. He never once attempts a reply to one page, any otherwise than by screaming out, ‘Pettiness, scurrility, effrontery,’ and in subjoining that deep remark, ‘Paper and time would be wasted on such stuff' (Third Part, Preface, p. 15). 11. I cannot but account it another good effect that he is something less confident than he was before. He is likewise not more angry or more bitter, for that cannot be, but a few degrees more serious. So that I plainly perceive this is the way I am to take if I should have leisure to answer the Third Part; although it is far from my desire to write in this manner: it is as contrary to my inclination as to my custom. 12. But is it possible that a person of your Lordship's character should countenance such a performance as this It cannot be your Lordship's desire to pour contempt on all that is truly venerable among men! to stab Christianity to the heart under the color of opposing enthusiasm, and to increase and give a sanction to the profaneness which already overspreads our land as a flood! 13. Were the Methodists ever so bad, yet are they not too despicable and inconsiderable for your Lordship’ notice

4. I do not admire the manner wherein they treat their opponents. I cannot reconcile it either to love, humility or sincerity. Is utter contempt or settled disdain consistent with love or humility And can it consist with sincerity to deny any charge which they know in their conscience is true to say those quotations are unjust which are literally copied from their own books to affirm their doctrines am mis-represented when their own sense is given in their own words to cry, ‘Poor man! He is quite dark; he is utterly blind; he knows nothing of our doctrines!’ though they cannot point out one mistake this blind man has made or confute one assertion he has advanced Fourthly. I least of all admire the effects their doctrine has had on some who have lately begun to hear them. For - 1. It has utterly destroyed their faith, their inward ‘evidence of things not seen,’ the deep conviction they once had that the Lamb of God had taken away their sins. Those who before had the witness in themselves of redemption in the blood of Christ, who had the Spirit of God clearly witnessing with their spirit that they were the children of God, after hearing these but a few times, began to doubt; then reasoned themselves into utter darkness; and in a while affirmed, first, that they had no faith now (which was true), and soon after, that they never had any. And this was not the accidental but natural effect of that doctrine that there are no degrees in faith, and that none has any faith who is liable at any time to any degree of doubt or fear; as well as of that dark, unintelligible, unscriptural manner wherein they affect to speak of it.

Because you have wrought folly in Israel, grieved the Holy Spirit of God, betrayed your own soul into temptation and sin, and the souls of many others, whom you ought, even at the peril of your own life, to have guarded against all sin; because you have given occasion to the enemies of God, whenever they shall know these things, to blaspheme the ways and truth of God: We can in no wise receive you as a fellow laborer till we see clear proofs of your real and deep repentance. Of this you have given us no proof yet. You have not so much as named one single person in all England or Ireland with whom you have behaved ill, except those we knew before. The last and lowest proof of such repentance which we can receive is that: that, till our next Conference (which we hope will be in October), you abstain both from preaching and from practicing physic. If you do not, we are clear; we cannot answer for the consequences. [Wheatley’s immorality ‘put my brother and me,’ says Charles Wesley, ‘upon a resolution of strictly examining into the life and moral behavior of every preacher in connection with us; and the office fell upon me.’ He set out for this purpose on June 29. His brother wrote frequently to him during these anxious weeks. Dr. Whitehead has preserved some fragments of Wesley's letters which show how jealously the brothers watched over their band of helpers. See Whitehead's Wesley, ii. 266--70. July 17. -- I fear for C.S. [Charles Skelton. He left Wesley in April 1754, intending to settle at Bury, but became an Independent minister in Southwark. See Journal, iii. 403, 470; iv. 93, 295.] and J.C. [Joseph Cownley, one of Wesley's best preachers. He died on Oct. 8, 1792. See Wesley’s Veterans iv. 122-69; and letter of Sept. 20, 1746.] more and more. I have heard they frequently and bitterly rail against the Church. [On this Charles puts the following query:] What assurance can we have that they will not forsake it, at least when we are dead Ought we to admit any man for a preacher till we can trust his invariable attachment to the Church

[London], August 3. -- I heartily concur with you in dealing with all, not only with disorderly walkers, but also triflers, aa, ppa, the effeminate and busybodies, as with M. F. [See C. Wesley's Journal, ii. 90-1. He heard Michael Fenwick preach at Leeds () on Aug. 5. ‘It was beyond description.... I talked closely with him, utterly averse to working, and told him plainly he should either labor with his hands or preach no more. He hardly complied, though he confessed it was his ruin, his having been taken off his business. I answered I would repair the supposed injury, by setting him up again in his shop.’ See letter of Sept. 12, 1755. See also ibid. p. 94: ‘I heard J. J., the drummer, again, and liked him worse than at first’] I spoke to one this morning, so that I was even amazed at myself. [London], August 8. -- We must have forty itinerant preachers, or drop some of our Societies. You cannot so well judge of this without seeing the letters I receive from all parts. [London], August 15. -- If our preachers do not, nor will not, spend all their time in study and saving souls, they must be employed dose in other work or perish. [London], August 17. -- C. S. pleads for a kind of aristocracy, and says you and I should do nothing without the consent of all the preachers; otherwise we govern arbitrarily, to which they cannot submit. Whence is this [Cullompton], August 24. -- Oh that you and I may arise and stand upright! [See next letter for Charles Wesley's verdict.] I quite agree with you: let us have but six, so we are all one. I have sent one more home to his work. We may trust God to send forth more laborers; only be not unwilling to receive them, when there is reasonable proof that He has sent them. [Wesley says on Aug. 21 that in Wiltshire and Devonshire he ‘found more and more proof that the poor wretch [Wheatley] whom we had lately disowned was continually laboring to poison our other preachers’ See Journal, iii. 535.] To Ebenezer Blackwell [10] BRISTOL, July 3, 1751.

‘He represents them,’ you say, ‘in the blackest colors; yet declares in the main they are some of the best people in the world. His love and esteem for them increases more and more. His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds. But still Methodism is the strongest barrier against the Moravian doctrines and principles.’ Sir, I bear you witness you have learned one principle at least from those with whom you have lately conversed -- namely, that no faith is to be kept with heretics; of which you have given us abundant proof. For you know I have fully answered every article of this charge, which you repeat as if I had not opened my lips about it. You know that there is not one grain of truth in several things which you here positively assert. For instance: ‘His love and esteem of them increases more and more.’ Not so; no more than my love and esteem for you. I love you both; but I do not much esteem either. Again: ‘His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds.’ When Where I know not that ten of my disciples, as you call them, have gone over to them for twice ten months. O sir, consider! How do you know but some of your disciples may tell your name 17. With the same veracity you go on: ‘In the Character of a Methodist those of the sect are described as having all the virtues that can adorn the Christian profession. But in their Journals you find them waspish, condemning all the world except themselves; and among themselves perpetual broils and confusions, with various other irregularities and vices.’ I answer: (1) The tract you refer to (as is expressly declared in the Preface) does not describe what the Methodists are already; but what they desire to be, and what they will be then when they fully practice the doctrine they hear. (2) Be pleased to point the pages in my Journals which mention those ‘various irregularities and vices.’ Of their ‘perpetual broils and confusions’ I shall speak under their proper head.

You add: ‘Sometimes they are so far from fearing death that they wish it. But the keenness of the edge is soon blunted. They are full of dreadful apprehensions that the clergy intend to murder them.’ Do, you mean me, sir I plead, Not guilty. I never had any such apprehension. Yet I suppose you designed the compliment for me by your dragging in two or three broken sentences from my First Journal. But how little to the purpose, seeing at the time that was written I had never pretended to be above the fear of death. So that this is no proof of the point in view -- of the ‘unsteadiness of my sentiments or practice.’ 18. You proceed: ‘One day they fancy it their duty to preach; the next they preach with great reluctance.’ Very true! But they fancy it their duty still, else they would not preach at all. This, therefore, does not prove any inequality either of sentiment or practice. ‘Mr. Wesley is sometimes quite averse from speaking, and then perplexed with the doubt, Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit, or a temptation from nature or the evil one’ Just of a piece with the rest. The sentence runs thus: ‘I went several times with a design to speak to the sailors, but could not. I mean, I was quite averse from speaking. Is not this what men commonly mean by “I could not speak” And is this a sufficient cause of silence or no Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit, or a temptation from nature or the evil one’ Sir, I was in no doubt at all on the occasion. Nor did I intend to express any in these words; but to appeal to men’s conscience whether what they call ‘a prohibition from the good Spirit’ be not a mere ‘temptation from nature or the evil one.’ 19. In the next section you are to show ‘the art, cunning, and sophistry of the Methodists, who, when hard pressed by argument, run themselves into inconsistency and self-contradiction, and occasionally either defend or give up some of their favorite notions and principal points’ (sect. xii. p. 102). I dare say, sir, you will not put them to the trial. Argument lies out of the way of one solufos

Qui captat risus hominum, farnamque dicacis. [Horace's Satires, I. iv. 82-3: ‘One that affects the droll, and loves to raise a home-laugh.’] But to the proof. ‘Mr. Wesley,’ you say, ‘at one time declares for a disinterested love of God; at another declares there is no one caution in all the Bible against the selfish love of God.’ Nay, sir; I will tell you what is stranger still: Mr. Wesley holds at one time both sides of this contradiction. I now declare both that ‘all true love is disinterested, “seeketh not her own,” and that there is no one caution in all the Bible against the selfish love of God.’ What, have I the art to slip out of your hands again ‘Pardon me,’ as your old friend says, ‘for being jocular.’ 20. You add, altius insurgens [Virgil's Aeneid, xi. 697: ‘Rising to more exalted strains.’]: ‘But it is a considerable offence to charge another wrongfully and contradict himself about the doctrine of Assurance.’ To prove this upon me you bring my own words: ‘The assurance we preach is of quite another kind from that Mr. Bedford writes against. We speak of an assurance of our present pardon; not, as he does, of our final perseverance.’ (Journal, ii. 83.) ‘Mr. Wesley might have considered,’ you say, ‘that, when they talk of “assurance of pardon and salvation,” the world will extend the meaning of the words to our eternal state.’ I do consider it, sir; and therefore I never use that phrase either in preaching or writing. ‘Assurance of pardon and salvation’ is an expression that never comes out of my lips; and if Mr. Whitefield does use it, yet he does not preach such an assurance as the privilege of all Christians. ‘But Mr. Wesley himself says, that “though a full assurance of faith does not necessarily imply a full assurance of our future perseverance, yet some have both the one and the other.” And now what becomes of his charge against Mr. Bedford And is it not mere evasion to say afterwards, “This is not properly an assurance of what is future”’ Sir, this argument presses me very hard! May I not be allowed a little evasion now Come, for once I will try to do without it, and to answer flat and plain.

And I answer: (1) That faith is one thing, the full assurance of faith another. (2) That even the full assurance of faith does not imply the full assurance of perseverance: this bears another name, being styled by St. Paul ‘the full assurance of hope.’ (3) Some Christians have only the first of these; they have faith, but mixed with doubts and fears. Some have also the full assurance of faith, a full conviction of present pardon; and yet not the full assurance of hope, not a full conviction of their future perseverance. (4) The faith which we preach as necessary to all Christians is the first of these, and no other. Therefore (5) It is no evasion at all to say, ‘This (the faith which we preach as necessary to all Christians) is not properly an assurance of what is future.’ And consequently my charge against Mr. Bedford stands good--that his sermon on Assurance is an ignoratio elenchi, an ‘ignorance of the point in question,’ from beginning to end. [See letter of Sept. 28, 1738.] Therefore neither do I ‘charge another wrongfully, nor contradict myself about the doctrine of Assurances.’ 21. To prove my art, cunning, and evasion, you instance next in the case of impulses and impressions. You begin: ‘With what pertinacious confidence have impulses, impressions, feelings, &c., been advanced into certain rules of conduct! Their followers have been taught to depend upon them as sure guides and infallible proofs.’ To support this weighty charge, you bring one single scrap, about a line and a quarter, from one of my Journals. The words are these: ‘By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced.’ Convinced of what It immediately follows: ‘Of unbelief, having no such faith as will prevent my heart from being troubled.’ I here assert that inward feeling or consciousness is the most infallible of proofs of unbelief -- of the want of such a faith as will prevent the heart’s being troubled. But do I here ‘advance impressions, impulses, feelings, &c., into certain rules of conduct’ or anywhere else You may just as well say I advance them into certain proofs of transubstantiation. Neither in writing, in preaching, nor in private conversation have I ever ‘taught any of my followers to depend upon them as sure guides or infallible proofs’ of anything.

‘It is well if the genuine religion of Christ has any more alliance with what you call religion than with the Turkish pilgrimages to Mecca or the Popish worship of Our Lady of Loretto. Have not you substituted in the place of the religion of the heart something, I do not say equally sinful, but equally vain and foreign to the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth What else can be said even of prayer, public or private, in the manner wherein you generally perform it as a thing of course, running round and round, in the same dull track, without either the knowledge or the love of God, without one heavenly temper, either attained or improved ' [Works, viii. 202.] Now, sir, what room is there for your own exclamations - ‘What sort of heavenly temper is his How can he possibly, consistently with charity, call this our general performance’ Sir, I do not. I only appeal to the conscience of you and each particular reader whether this is or is not the manner wherein you (in the singular number) generally perform public or private prayer. ‘How possibly, without being omniscient, can he affirm that we (I presume you mean all the members of our Church) pray without one heavenly temper or know anything at all of our private devotions How monstrous is all this!’ Recollect yourself, sir. If your terror is real, you are more afraid than hurt. I do not affirm any such thing. I do not take upon me to know anything at all of your private devotions. But I suppose I may inquire without offence, and beg you seriously to examine yourself before God. So you have brought no one proof that ‘skepticism, infidelity, and Atheism are either constituent parts or genuine consequences of Methodism.’ Therefore your florid declamation in the following pages is entirely out of its place. And you might have spared yourself the trouble of accounting for what has no being but in your own imagination. 27. You charge the Methodists next with ‘an uncharitable spirit’ (sect. xv. p. I15, &c.). All you advance in proof of this, as if it were from my writings, but without naming either page or book, I have nothing to do with. But whatever you tell me where to find I shall carefully consider.

Sir, has your passion quite extinguished your reason Have fierceness and rancor left you no understanding Otherwise, how is it possible you should run on at this senseless, shameless rate These things are true which Mr. Whitefield and Wesley object to each other. He holds the decrees; I do not: yet this does not prove us ‘detestable sectarists.’ And whether these things are true or false, your allegation of our ‘fierce and rancorous quarrels and mutual heinous accusations’ cannot stand good without better proof than you have yet produced. 34. Yet, with the utmost confidence, quasi re bene gesta, [‘As though you had accomplished some mighty affair.’] you proceed: ‘And how stands the matter among their disciples They are altogether by the ears, embroiled and broken with unchristian quarrels and confusions.’ How do you prove this Why thus: ‘Mr. Wesley's Fourth Journal is mostly taken up in enumerating their wrath, dissensions, and apostasies.’ No, sir, not a tenth part of it; although it gives a full and explicit account of the greatest dissensions which ever were among them. But to come to particulars, You first cite these words: ‘At Oxford, but a few who had not forsaken them.’ My words are: ‘Monday, October 1, 1739. I rode to Oxford; and found a few who had not yet forsaken the assembling themselves together.’ This is your first proof that ‘the Methodists are all together by the ears.’ Your second is its very twin brother: ‘Tuesday, 2. I went to many who once heard the word with joy; but “when the sun arose, they withered away.” ‘ (ii. 283-4.) Your third is this: ‘Many were induced (by the Moravians) to deny the gift of God, and affirm they never had any faith at all’ (ii. 315). You are at liberty to enjoy this argument also; and let it prove what it can prove. You, fourthly, cite these words: ‘Many of our sisters are shaken, grievously torn by reasonings. But few come to Fetter Lane, and then after their names are called over they presently depart. Our brethren here (those who were proselytes to the Moravians) have neither wisdom enough to guide nor prudence enough to let it alone. They (the Moravians) have much confounded some of our sisters, and many of our brothers are much grieved.’ (ii. 326-7.)

I have now weighed every argument you have brought to prove that the ‘Methodists undermine morality and good works.’ A grievous charge indeed! But the more inexcusable is he who advances it but is not able to make it good in any one single instance. Pardon my pertness, sir, in not barely affirming (that is your manner) but proving this; nay, and in telling you that you cannot make amends to God, to me, or to the world without a retractation as public as your calumny. 42. You add: ‘How the case stands, in fact, as to the number of converts among the Methodists and real reformation of life to the certain and known duties of the gospel is matter of difficult determination.’ Not at all. What is easier to be determined than (1) that A. B., of Exeter, or Tiverton, was for many years a notorious drunkard, common swearer, or Sabbath-breaker (2) that he is not so now; that he is really reformed from drunkenness, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, to sobriety and the other certain and known duties of the gospel ‘But from what inquiry’ you ‘can make there is no reason to think them, for the generality, better than their neighbors.’ ‘Better than their neighbors’ I Why, are they no worse than their neighbors’ Then, what have you been doing all this time But, whether they are better or worse than their neighbors, they are undeniably better than themselves: I mean, better than they were before they heard this preaching 'in the certain and known duties of the gospel.’ But you desire us to 'consider their black art of calumny; their uncharitableness; their excessive pride and vanity; their skepticism, doubts, and disbelief of God and Christ; their disorderly practices and contempt of authority; their bitter envying and inveterate broils among themselves; their coolness for good works.' Sir, we will consider all these when you have proved them. Till then this is mere brutum fulmen. 43. You proceed: ‘If we take Mr. Wesley's own account, it falls very short of any considerable reformation.’ You mean, if we take that part of his account which you are pleased to transcribe. Atticam elegantiam! But let any impartial man read my whole account, and then judge. However, hence you infer that ‘the new reformers have made but a slow and slight progress in the reformation of manners.’

You graciously say: ‘I do not lay much stress upon the charge of some of the angry Moravians against Mr. Wesley and brother for preaching Popery.’ Sir, if you had, you would only have hurt yourself. For (1) the Moravians never, that I know of, brought this charge at all; (2) when Mr. Cennick and two other Predestinarians (these were the persons) affirmed they had heard both my brother and me preach Popery, they meant neither more nor less thereby than the doctrine of Universal Redemption. ‘Some connection between the doctrines of Methodists and Papists hath been shown through this whole Comparison.’ Shown! But how By the same art of wire-drawing and deciphering which would prove an equal connection between the Methodists and Mahometans. ‘Jesuits have often mingled and been the ringleaders among our enthusiastic sectaries.’ Sir, I am greatly obliged to you for your compliment, as well as for your parallel of Mr. Faithful Commin. [A Dominican friar examined in 1567 before Queen Elizabeth and Archbishop Parker. He escaped to Rome, and received 2,000 ducals from the Pope for his good service. See The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared, i. 133.] And pray, sir, at what time do you think it was that I first mingled with those enthusiastic sectaries when I came back from Germany, or when I returned from Georgia, or while I was at Lincoln College Although the plot itself might be laid before, when I was at Christ Church or at the Charterhouse School. But ‘a Jesuit’s or enthusiast’s declaring against Popery is no test of their sincerity.’ Most sure: nor is a nameless person's declaring against Methodism any proof that he is not a Jesuit. I remember well, when a well-dressed man, taking his stand not far from Moor fields, had gathered a large company, and was vehemently asserting that ‘those rogues the Methodists were all Papists,’ till a gentleman coming by fixed his eye on him, and cried, ‘Stop that man! I know him personally: he is a Romish priest.’ I know not that anything remains on this head which bears so much as the face of an argument. So that, of all the charges you have brought (and truly you have not been sparing), there is not one wherein your proof falls more miserably short than in this -- that ‘the Methodists are advancing Popery.’

‘On Saturday, August 25, 1750, Mr. Trembath of St. Gennys, Mr. Haime of Shaftesbury, and I called at Mr. Morgan's at Mitchell. The servant telling me her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the “honest, sensible woman.” I immediately asked, “Did I ever tell you or your husband that you would be damned if you took any money of me” (So the story ran in the First Part of the Comparison; it has now undergone a very considerable alteration.) “Or did you or he ever affirm” (another circumstance related at Truro) “that I was rude with your maid” She replied vehemently, "Sir, I never said you was or that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But we have been belied as well as our neighbors.” She added: “When the Bishop came down last, he sent us word he would dine at our house; but he did not, bring invited to a neighboring gentleman’s. He sent for me thither, and said, Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down Do you know Mr. Wesley Did not he tell you you would be damned if you took any money of him And did not he offer rudeness to your maid I told him, No, my Lord; he never said any such thug to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him; but a man told me once (who, I was told was a Methodist preacher) that I should be damned if I did not know my sins were forgiven.”’ Your Lordship replies: ‘I neither sent word that I would dine at their house, nor did I send for Mrs. Morgan; every word that passed between us was at her own house at Mitchell’ (page 7). I believe it; and consequently that the want of exactness in this print rests on Mrs. Morgan, not on your Lordship.

Page 324: ‘Hence it is that the chaos mentioned in the 1st chapter of Genesis cannot be understood of the primitive state of nature.’ Why not, if God created the world gradually as we are assured He did In the fifth book (page 334) I read a more extraordinary assertion than any of the preceding: ‘The infusion of such supernatural habits by one instantaneous act is impossible. We cannot be confirmed in immutable babes of good but by a long-continued repetition of free acts.’ I dare not say so. I am persuaded God can this moment confirm me immutably good. Page 335: ‘Such is the nature of finite spirits that, after a certain degree of good habits contracted, they become unpervertible and immutable in the love of order.’ If so, ‘after a certain degree of evil habits contracted, must they not become unconvertible and immutable in the hatred of order’ And if Omnipotence cannot prevent the one, neither can it prevent the other. Page 343: ‘No creature can suffer but what has merited punishment.’ This is not true: for the man Christ Jesus was a creature. But He suffered; yet He had not merited punishment, unless our sins were imputed to Him. But if so, Adam's sin might be imputed to us; and on that account even an infant may suffer. Now, if these things are so, if a creature may suffer for the sin of another imputed to him, then the whole frame of reasoning for the pre-existence of souls, raised from the contrary supposition, falls to the ground. Page 347: ‘There are but three opinions concerning the transmission of original sin.’ That is, there are but three ways of accounting how it is transmitted. I care not if there were none. The fact I know, both by Scripture and by experience. I know it is transmitted; but how it is transmitted I nether know nor desire to know. Page 353: ‘By this insensibility and spiritual lethargy in which all souls remain, ere they awake into mortal bodies, the habits of evil in some are totally extinguished.’ Then it seems there is a third possible way of curing moral evil. And why may not all souls be cured this way without any pain or suffering at all ‘If any impurity remains in them, it is destroyed in a middle state after death’ (ibid.).

Now I have nether more nor less faith in human testimony than I had ten or fifteen years ago. I could suspect every man that speaks to me to be either a blunderer or a liar But I will not. I dare not till I have proof. I give you a dilemma. Take one side or the other. Either act really in connection with me, or never pretend to it. Rather disclaim it, and openly avow you do and will not. By acting in connection with me, I mean take counsel with me once or twice a year as to the places where you will labor. Hear my advice before you fix whether you take it or no. At present you are so far from this that I do not even know when and where you intend to go; so far are you from following any advice of mine -- nay, even from asking it. And yet I may say without vanity that I am a better judge of this matter than either Lady Huntingdon, Sally, [Charles wrote his wife in the autumn of 1753: ‘The more heavily I labor in the vineyard, the longer I shag continue with you.’ See Telford’s Charles Wesley, pp. 195-6.] Jones [John Jones. See letter of April 16 1748.], or any other -- nay, than your own heart, that is will. I wish you all peace, zeal, and love. To his Brother Charles [9] LONDON October 31, 1753. DEAR BROTHER, -- My fever intermitted after twelve hours. After a second fit of about fourteen hours, I began taking the bark, and am now recovering my strength. I cannot apprehend that such music has any analogy at all to the inward voice of God. I take it to differ from this toto genere and to be rather the effect of an angel affecting the auditory nerves, as an apparition does the optical nerve or retina. [See previous letter.] Ted Perronet is now thoroughly recovered. I had a letter from him a day or two ago. You say, ‘That is not the will of God which His providence makes impracticable. But His providence made my going to Bedford impracticable.’ Prove the minor and I shall be content.

DEAR SIR, -- Although I hope to see you in about a fortnight, yet I could not be satisfied without sending you a few lines first. Since I left London I have had many thoughts concerning you, and sometimes uneasy ones. I have been jealous over you, lest you should not duly improve the numerous talents with which God has entrusted you; nay, I have been afraid lest your very desire of improving them should grow weaker rather than stronger. If so, by what means is it to be accounted for What has occasioned this feebleness of mind May it not partly be occasioned by your conversing more than is necessary (for so far as it is necessary it does not hurt us) with men that are without God in the world -- that love, think, talk of earthly things only partly by your giving way to a false shame (and that in several instances), which, the more you indulge it, increases the more and partly by allowing too large a place in your thoughts and affections even to so innocent an enjoyment as that of a garden If this leaves you fewer opportunities of hearing that word which is able to save your soul, may not you even hereby grieve the Holy Spirit and be more a loser than you are sensible of I know both Mrs. Blackwell and you desire to please God in all things. You will therefore, I know, receive these hints as they are intended -- not as a mark of disesteem, but rather of the sincerity with which I am, dear sir, Your ever affectionate servant. To Sir James Lowther [4] LONDON October 28, 1754. SIR, -- Whether I see you any more in this life or no, I rejoice that I have seen you this once, and that God enabled you to bear with patience what I spoke in the simplicity of my heart.

MY DEAR, -- I thank you for the good account you have given me of Mr. V.’s sermon; he himself called this afternoon. I read your letter to him, and he was highly pleased with the attention which he said you must have given to remember the heads of it so exactly. I think it was an excellent one, and doubt not but the grace of God accompanied words so sincerely spoken, as his are, to the hearts of the hearers; and I hope it was so to you in particular. I think you will be quite right to go to the --- now and then on a Sunday evening, when you can do it without danger of Mr.-- knowing it.... Do you know that your master has lately invited Mr.--- to dine with him Let us trust in God that something good may arise from this. Furly’s sister showed much kindness to Mary Bosanquet. ‘Indeed, I was in some sense commuted to her care by my parents, who have for years been acquainted with her family.’ See Moore’s Mrs. Fletcher, p. 3x; and for Mrs. Lefevre’s interest in Furly, letter of September 12, 1755, to Ebenezer Blackwell. John Thornton, of Clapham, presented Furly to the living of Roche in 1766. He died in 1795.

I have often desired our preachers to bury a corpse at Wapping. I mean to give an exhortation, closed with a prayer. I do not know that this is any breach of the sacerdotal office. None of our Societies have received James Wheatley yet. I suppose none will. Yet we may give a caution wherever we write. T. Walsh [See Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 200; and letter of June 20.] (I will declare it on the housetop) has given me a~ the satisfaction I desire, and all that an honest man could give. I love, admire, and honor him, and wish we had six preaches in all England of his spirit. But enough of this. Let us draw the saw no longer, but use all our talents to promote the mind that was in Christ. ‘Not yet’ is rotary out of the question. We have not one preacher who either proposed or desires or designs (that I know) to separate from the Church ‘at all.’ Their principles (in the single point of ordination) I do not approve. But I pray for more and more of their spirit (in general) and their practice. I have talked with Mr. Graves, [Charles Caspar Graves one of Charles Wesley's clerical friends, whom he describes in 1739 as ‘thoroughly awakened.’ See Journal, iii. 40-2; C. Wesley's Journal, i. 160, 422.] and shall do again. Driving me may make me fluctuate; though I do not yet. ‘When the preachers in Ireland set up for themselves, must you not disown them’ I answer ‘When.’ I thought you said my sister expected to lie in in May; now it is the end of June. [Martha Maria, their second child, was born on June 23, but lived only a month and two days.] If you can go to Cornwall in the end of July, it is soon enough. I wish you-would see each of the country Societies; and why not New Kingswood too Adieu. [Note at back: ‘Robert Windsor. Given to Chas. He set out for Norwich on Monday.’] To Richard Tompson [9] LONDON, June 28 1755.

That you may deafly see wherein we agree or wherein we differ, I have sent you the Minutes of some of our late Conferences. Several concessions are made therein, both with regard to Assurance and Christian Perfection; some difficulties cleared, and a few arguments proposed, though very nakedly and briefly. When you have read these, you may come directly to any point of controversy which may still remain; and ff you can show me that any farther concessions are needful, I shall make them with great pleasure. On the subject of your last I can but just observe, first, with regard to the assurance of faith, I apprehend that the whole Christian Church in the first centuries enjoyed it. For though we have few points of doctrine explicitly taught in the small remains of the ante-Nicene Fathers, yet I think none that carefully reads Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen, or any other of them, can doubt whether either the writer himself possessed it or all whom he mentions as real Christians. And I ready conceive, both from the Harrnonia Confessionurn and whatever else I have occasionally read, that all the Reformed Churches in Europe did once believe ‘Every true Christian has the divine evidence of his being in favor with God.’ So much for authority. The point of experience is touched upon in the Conferences. As to the nature of the thing, I think a divine conviction of pardon is directly implied in the evidence or conviction of things unseen. But if not, it is no absurdity to suppose that, when God pardons a mourning, broken-hearted sinner, His mercy obliges Him to another act -- to witness to his spirit that He has pardoned him. I know that I am accepted; and yet that knowledge is sometimes shaken, though not destroyed, by doubt or fear. If that knowledge were destroyed or wholly withdrawn, I could not then say I had Christian faith. To me it appears the same thing to say, ‘I know God has accepted me,’ or “I have a sure trust that God has accepted me.’

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.

Dear sir, coolly and impartially consider this, and you will see on which side the difficulty lies. I do assure you this at present is my chief embarrassment. That I have not gone too far yet I know; but whether I have gone far enough I am extremely doubtful. I see those running whom God hath not sent, destroying their own souls and those that hear them, perverting the right ways of the Lord, blaspheming the truth as it is in Jesus. I see the blind leading the blind and both falling into the ditch. Unless I warn in all ways I can these perishing souls of their danger, am I clear of the blood of these men Soul-damning clergymen lay me under more difficulties than soul-saying laymen.

Those among ourselves who have been in doubt whether they ought so to beware of these false prophets as not to hear them at all are not men of a ‘forward uncharitable zeal’ but of a calm, loving, temperate spirit. They are perfectly easy as to their own call to preach; but they are troubled for those poor uncaged, blind guides. And they are sometimes afraid that the countenancing these is a dead weight even on those clergymen who are ready called of God. ‘Why else,’ say they, ‘does not God bless their labors Why do they still stretch forth their hands in vain ‘We know Mr. Piers, Perone, Manning, and several regular clergymen who do preach the genuine gospel, but to no effect at all. There is one exception in England -- Mr. Walker at Truro. We do not know one more who has converted one soul in his own parish. If it be said, ‘Has not Mr. Grimshaw and Mr. Baddeley [John Baddeley, Rector of Hayfield in Derbyshire, was converted in 1748 and ‘preaches the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.’ He was ‘a sort of second Grimshaw.’ He formed. Societies, and appointed laymen to assist him. Wesley visited him in April 1755; and after the Leeds Conference, Baddeley wrote him an affectionate letter about separation from the Church of England. See Journal, iv. 110-11, v. 109; Arminian Mag. 1779 p. 319; Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 195. For William Grimshaw, see letter of Nov. 2, 1748.] No, not one, till they were irregular -- till both the one and the other formed irregular Societies and took in laymen to assist them. Can there be a stronger proof that God is pleased with irregular even more than with regular preaching ‘But might not the Methodists in general serve the interests of Christ better as witnesses and examples of a living faith by returning to a closer union with the Church than by separating still farther’ We have no design at present of separating father (if we have yet separated at all). Neither dare we return to a closer union, if that means either prohibiting lay preachers or ceasing to watch over each other in love, and regularly meeting for that purpose.

‘The materiality of the angelic kingdom was spiritual’ (Part II. p. 27). What is spiritual materiality Is it not much the same with immaterial materiality ‘This spiritual materiality brought forth the heavenly flesh and blood of angels’ (page 57). That angels have bodies you affirm elsewhere. But are you sure they have flesh and blood Are not the angels spirits And surely a spirit hath not flesh and blood. ‘The whole glassy sea was a mirror of beauteous forms, colors, and sounds, perpetually springing up, having also fruits and vegetables, but not gross, as the fruits of the world. This was continually bringing forth new figures of life; not animals, but ideal forms of the endless divisibility of life.' (Part I. pp. 18-19.) This likewise is put into the mouth of God. But is nonsense from the Most High What less is ‘a mirror of beauteous sounds’ And what are ‘figures of life’ Are they alive or dead, or between both, as a man may be between sleeping and waking What are ‘ideal forms of the endless divisibility of life’ Are they the same with those forms of stones, one of which Maraton took up (while he was seeking Yaratilda) to throw at the form of a lion [See Spectator, No. 56, May 4, 1711, where Addison describes the Indian visionary's adventures in an underworld of unrealities.] ‘The glassy sea being become thick and dark, the spirit converted its fire and wrath into sun and stars, its dross and darkness into earth, its mobility into air, its moisture into water’ (Part II. p. 29). Was wrath converted into sun or stars, or a little of it bestowed on both How was darkness turned into earth or mobility into air Has not fire more mobility than this Did there need omnipotence to convert fire into fire, into the sun, or moisture into water ‘Darkness was absolutely unknown to the angels till they fell. Hence it appears that darkness is the ground of the materiality of nature.’ (Page 33.) Appears -- to whom Nothing appears to me but the proving ignoturn per ignotius.

‘All life is a desire’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 198). ‘Every desire as such is and must be made up of contrariety. God's bringing a sensible creature into existence is the bringing the power of desire into a creaturely state.’ (Ibid.) Does not all this require a little more proof, and not a little illustration ‘Hard and soft, thick and thin, could have no existence till nature lost its first purity. And this is the one true origin of all the materiality of this world. Else nothing thick or hard could ever have been.’ (Part I. p. 21.) Does not this call for much proof since most people believe God created matter, merely because so it seemed good in His sight. But you add a kind of proof. ‘How comes a flint to be so hard and dark It is because the meekness and fluidity of the light, air, and water are not in it.’ (Ibid.) The meekness of light and air and water! What is that Is air or water capable of virtue ‘The first property of nature is a constraining, attracting, and coagulating power’ (page 24). I wait the proof of this. ‘God brought gross matter out of the sinful properties of nature, that thereby the fallen angels might lose all their power over them’ (page 27). And have they lost all power over them Is Satan no longer prince of the power of the air ‘As all matter is owing to the first property of nature, which is an astringing, compressing desire’ (page 28). Stop here, sir. I totally deny that any unintelligent being is capable of any desire at all. And yet this gross, capital mistake runs through your whole theory. ‘The fourth property is fire’ (page 49). Where is the proof ‘Which changes the properties of nature into an heavenly state’ (page 48). Proof again ‘The conjunction of God and nature brings forth fire.’ This needs the most proof of all. ‘Every right-kindled fire must give forth light.’ Why ‘Because the eternal fire is the effect of supernatural light.’ Nay, then light should rather give forth fire. ‘The fire of the soul and that of the body has but one nature’ (page 52). Can either Behmen or Spinosa prove this 3. Of Adam in paradise.

‘Adam was created to keep what is called the curse covered and overcome by paradise. And as paradise concealed and overcame all the evil in the elements, so Adam's heavenly man concealed from him all the evil of the earthly nature that was under it.’ (Page 62.) Can we believe that there was any evil in man from the creation, if we believe the Bible ‘Our own good spirit is the very Spirit of God; and yet not God, but the Spirit of God kindled into a creaturely form.’ Is there any meaning in these words And how are they consistent with those that follow ‘This spirit is so related to God as my breath is to the air’ (page 195). Nay, if so, your spirit is God; for your breath is air. ‘That Adam had at first the nature of an angel is plain from hence, that he was both male and female in one person. Now, this (the being both male and female) is the very perfection of the angelic nature.’ (Page 65.) Naturalists say that snails have this perfection. But who can prove that angels have You attempt to prove it thus: ‘“In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.” Here we are told (1) that the being male and female in one person is the very nature of angels: (2) that man shall be so too at the resurrection; therefore he was so at first.’ (Page 66.) Indeed, we are not told here that angels are hermaphrodites -- no, nor anything like it. The whole passage is: ‘They who are accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels’ (Luke xx. 35-6): namely, not in being male and female, but in this -- that they ‘cannot die any more.’ This is the indisputable meaning of the words. So this whole proof vanishes into air. You have one more thought full as new as this: ‘All earthly beasts are but creaturely eruptions of the disorder that is broken out from the fallen spiritual world. So earthly serpents are but transitory out-births of covetousness, envy, pride, and wrath.’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 207.)

Why could not God do this Because ‘body and spirit are not two separate things, but are only the inward and outward condition of one and the same being. Every creature must have its own body, and cannot be without it. For its body is that’ (Who would have thought it!) ‘which makes it manifest to itself. It cannot know either that it is or what it is but by its own body!' (Page 32.) What a heap of bold assertions is here to curb Omnipotence! And not one of them has a tittle of proof, unless one can prove the other! But we have more still: ‘The body of any creature has nothing of its own, but is solely the outward manifestation of that which is inwardly in the soul. Every animal has nothing in its outward form or shape but that which is the form and growth of its spirit. As no number can be anything else but that which the units contained in it make it to be, so no body can be anything else but the coagulation or sum total of those properties of nature that are coagulated in it.’ (Page 33.) Astonishing! What a discovery is this, that a body is only a curdled spirit! that our bodies are only the sum total of our spiritual properties! and that the form of every man's body is only the form of his spirit made visible! ‘Every spirit manifests its own nature by that body which proceeds from it as its own birth’ (Part II. p. 17). Does the body, then, grow out of the spirit as the hair and nails grow out of the body, and this in consequence of the ‘powers of nature’ distinct from the power and will of God To abridge God of His power, after creation as well as before it, you affirm, farther,--

I have dwelt the longer on this head because of its inexpressible moment. For whether or no the doctrine of Justification by Faith be, as all Protestants thought at the time of the Reformation, articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae, ‘a doctrine without which there can be no Christian Church,’ most certainly there can be none where the whole notion of justification is ridiculed and exploded, unless it be such a church as includes, according to your account, every child of man, of which, consequently, Turks, Deists, and Pagans are as real members as the most pious Christian under the sun. I cannot but observe that this is the very essence of Deism: no serious infidel need contend for more. I would therefore no more set one of this opinion to convert Deists than I would set a Turk to convert Mahometans. 4. As every one that is justified is born of God, I am naturally led to consider, in the next place (so far as it is delivered in the tracts now before us), your doctrine of the New Birth. ‘In the day that Adam ate of the tree he died -- that is, his heavenly spirit with its heavenly body were extinguished. To make that heavenly spirit and body to be alive again in man, this is regeneration’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 9). Oh no, this is not, nor anything like it. This is the unscriptural dream of Behmen's heated imagination. ‘See the true reason why only the Son of God could be our Redeemer. It is because He alone could be able to bring to life again that celestial spirit and body which had died in Adam.’ (Ibid.) Not so; but He alone could be our Redeemer because He alone, ‘by that one oblation of Himself once offered,’ could make ‘a sufficient sacrifice and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.’ ‘See also why a man must “be born again of water and of the Spirit.” He must be born again of the Spirit because Adam’s heavenly spirit was lost.’ (Ibid.) Nay, but because Adam had lost the inward image of God wherein he was created. And no less than the almighty Spirit of God could renew that image in his soul.

There is abundantly greater danger of this when we fancy we have no longer need to ‘be taught of man.’ To this your late writings directly lead. One who admires them will be very apt to cry out, ‘I have found all that I need know of God, of Christ, of myself, of heaven, of hell, of sin, of grace, and of salvation’ (Part 114 p. 4). And the rather because you yourself affirm roundly, ‘When once we apprehend the all of God and our own nothingness’ (which a man may persuade himself he does in less than four-and-twenty hours), ‘it brings a kind of infallibility into the soul in which it dwells; all that is vain and false and deceitful is forced to vanish and fly before it' (Part I. p. 95). Agreeably to which you tell your convert, ‘You have no questions to ask of anybody’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 218). And if, notwithstanding this, he will ask, ‘But how am I to keep up the flame of love’ you answer, ‘I wonder you should want to know this. Does a blind or sick or lame man want to know how he should desire sight, health, or limbs’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part II. p. 165.) No; but he wants to know how he should attain and how he should keep them. And he who has attained the love of God may still want to know how he shall keep it. And he may still inquire, ‘May I not take my own passions or the suggestions of evil spirits for the workings of the Spirit of God’ (page 198). To this you answer, ‘Every man knows when he is governed by the spirit of wrath, envy, or covetousness as easily and as certainly as he knows when he is hungry’ (ibid.). Indeed he does not; neither as easily nor as certainly. Without great care he may take wrath to be pious zeal, envy to be virtuous emulation, and covetousness to be Christian prudence or laudable frugality. ‘Now, the knowledge of the Spirit of God in yourself is as perceptible as covetousness.’ Perhaps so; for this is as difficultly perceptible as any temper of the human soul. ‘And liable to no more delusion.’ Indeed it need not; for this is liable to ten thousand delusions.

This is right pleasing to flesh and blood; and I could most easily believe it if I did not believe the Bible. But that teaches me inwardly to worship God, as at all times and in all places, so particularly on His own day, in the congregation of His people, at His altar, and by the ministry of those His servants whom He hath given for this very thing, ‘for the perfecting of the saints,’ and with whom He will be to the end of the world. Extremely dangerous, therefore, is this other gospel, which leads quite wide of the gospel of Christ. And what must the consequence be if we thus ‘break,’ yea, ‘and teach men so,’ not ‘one’ only, neither ‘the least,’ of ‘His commandments’ Even that we ‘shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.’ God grant this may not fall on you or me! 7. However, whether we have a place in heaven or not, you are very sure we shall have none in hell. For there is no hell in rerum natura, ‘no such place in the universe.’ You declare this over and over again in great variety of expressions. It may suffice to mention two or three: ‘Hell is no penalty prepared or inflicted by God’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part II. p. 33). ‘Damnation is only that which springs up within you’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 47). ‘Hell and damnation are nothing but the various operations of self’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 79). I rather incline to the account published a few years ago by a wise and pious man (the late Bishop of Cork [Dr. Peter Browne's Procedure (or Progress), Extent, and Limits of Human Understanding, pp. See letter of Feb. 18, 1756, to Samuel Furly.]), where he is speaking of the improvement of human knowledge by revelation. Some of his words are,--

SIR, -- I was in Cornwall when your last was brought to the Foundry and delivered to my brother. When I returned, it was mislaid and could not be found; so that I did not receive it till some months after the date. You judge right with regard to the tract [The Address to the Clergy. Probably intended for the Rev. George Thompson Vicar of St. Gennys.] enclosed to you. It was sent to you by mistake for another that bears the same name. Christian perfection, we agree, may stand aside for the present. The point now to be considered is Christian faith. This, I apprehend, implies a divine evidence or conviction of our acceptance. You apprehend it does not. In debating this (or indeed any) point with you, I lie under a great disadvantage. (1) You know me; whereas I do not know you. (2) I am a very slow, you seem to be a very swift, writer. (3) My time is so taken up, from day to day and from week to week, that I can spare very little from my stated employments; so that I can neither write so largely nor so accurately as I might otherwise do. All, therefore, which you can expect from me is, not a close-wrought chain of connected arguments, but a short sketch of what I should deduce more at large if I had more leisure. I believe the ancient Fathers are far from being silent on our question; though none that I know have treated it professedly. But I have not leisure to wade through that sea. Only to the argument from the baptism of heretics I reply, If any had averred during that warm controversy, ‘I received a sense of pardon when I was baptized by such an heretic’ those on the other side would in no wise have believed him; so that the dispute would have remained as warm as ever. I know this from plain fact. Many have received a sense of pardon when I baptized them. But who will believe them when they assert it Who will put any dispute on this issue

I know likewise that Luther, Melanchthon, and many other (if not all) of the Reformers frequently and strongly assert that every believer is conscious of his own acceptance with God, and that by a supernatural evidence, which if any choose to term immediate revelation he may. But nether have I leisure to re-examine this cloud of witnesses. Nor, indeed, as you justly observe, would the testimony of them all together be sufficient to establish an unscriptural doctrine. Therefore, after all, we must be determined by higher evidence. And herein we are dearly agreed: we both appeal ‘to the law and to the testimony.’ May God enable us to understand it aright! But first, that you may not beat the air by disproving what I never intended to prove, I will show you as distinctly as I can what my sentiments are upon the question, and the rather because I plainly perceive you do not yet understand them. You seem to think I allow no degrees in grace, and that I make no distinction between the full assurance of faith and a low or common measure of it. Several years ago some clergymen and other gentlemen with whom we had a free conversation proposed the following questions to my brother and me, to which we gave the answers subjoined: -- ‘June 25, 1744. ‘QUESTION. What is faith ‘ANSWER. Faith in general is a divine, supernatural ‘e [‘Evidence’ or ‘conviction.’] of things not seen--that is, of past, future, or spiritual. It is a spiritual sight of God and the things of God. Justifying faith is a divine ‘e, that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. ‘Q. Have all Christians this faith And may not a man have it and not know it ‘A. That all Christians have such a faith as implies a consciousness of God’s love appears from Rom. viii. 15; Eph. iv. 32; 2 Cor. xiii. 5; Heb. viii. 10; 1 John iv. 10, v. 1, &c. And that no man can have it and not know that he has appears from the nature of the thing. For faith after repentance is ease after pain, rest after toil, light after darkness. It appears also from its immediate fruits, which are peace, joy, love, and power over sin. ‘Q. Does any one believe any longer than he sees, loves, obeys God

‘A. We apprehend not; “seeing God” being the very essence of faith, love and obedience the inseparable properties of it.’ ‘August 2, 1745. ‘QUESTION. Is an assurance of God’s pardoning love absolutely necessary to our being in His favor Or may there possibly be some exempt cases ‘ANSWER. We dare not positively say there are not. ‘Q. Is it necessary to final salvation in those (as Papists) who never heard it preached ‘A. We know not how far invincible ignorance may excuse. “Love hopeth all things.” ‘Q, But what if one who does hear it preached should die without it ‘A. We determine nothing. We leave his soul in the hands of Him that made it. ‘ Q. Does a man believe any longer than he sees a reconciled God ‘A. We conceive not. But we allow there may be very many degrees of seeing God, even as many as are between seeing the sun with the eyelids closed and with the eyes open.’ The doctrine which I espouse, till I receive farther light, being thus explained and limited, I observe, -- (1) A divine conviction of my being reconciled to God is, I think, directly implied, not in a divine evidence or conviction of something rise, but in a divine conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me, and still more clearly in the Spirit’s bearing witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. (2) I see no reason either to retract or soften the expression ‘God’s mercy in some cases obliges Him to act thus and thus.’ Certainly, as His own nature obliges Him (in a very clear and sound sense) to act according to truth and justice in all things; so in some sense His love obliged Him to give His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him might not perish. So much for the phrase. My meaning is, The same compassion which moves God to pardon a mourning, broken-hearted sinner moves Him to comfort that mourner by witnessing to his spirit that his sins are pardoned.

(3) You think ‘full assurance excludes all doubt.’ I think so too. But there may be faith without fun assurance. And these lower degrees of faith do not exclude doubts, which frequently mingle therewith, more or less. But this you cannot allow. You say it cannot be shaken without being overthrown; and trust I shall be ‘convinced upon reflection that the distinction between “shaken” and “destroyed” is absolutely without a difference.’ Hark! The wind rises: the house shakes, but it is not overthrown; it totters, but it is not destroyed. You add: ‘Assurance is quite a distinct thing from faith. Neither does it depend upon the same agent. Faith is an act of my mind; assurance an act of the Holy Ghost.’ I answer: (1) The assurance in question is no other than the full assurance of faith; therefore it cannot be a distinct thing from faith, but only so high a degree of faith as excludes all doubt and fear. (2) The plerophory, or full assurance, is doubtless wrought in us by the Holy Ghost. But so is every degree of true faith; yet the mind of man h the subject of both. I believe feebly; I believe without all doubt. Your next remark is: ‘The Spirit's witnessing that we are accepted cannot be the faith whereby we are accepted,’ I allow it. A conviction that we are justified cannot be implied in justifying faith. You subjoin: ‘A sure trust that God hath accepted me is not the same thing with knowing that God has accepted me.’ I think it is the same thing with some degree of that knowledge. But it matters not whether it be so or no. I will not contend for a term. I contend only for this -- that every true Christian believer has ‘a sure trust and confidence in God that through the merits of Christ he is reconciled to God’; and that in consequence of this he is able to say, ‘The life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.’

It is a very little thing to excuse a warm expression [In his letter of Feb. 25 'P. V.' says: ‘I hope sir, that I have not (in the course of my papers) been wanting in respect towards you; willingly, I am sure I have not: you do indeed intimate something concerning a warm expression, which I am entirely ignorant of; so hope you will excuse it.’] (if you need any such excuse) while I am convinced of your real goodwill to, sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake. To Samuel Furly [7] LONDON, February 18, 1756. DEAR SAMMY, -- You are a very complaisant person. I know in my little circle of acquaintance more than twenty who have all the natural qualifications mentioned in the Address to the Clergy, and several others who have a~ the acquired ones, either by education or by grace; and I would engage to take any person of fourteen years of age who has good natural abilities and to teach him in seven years everything which is there required to a good degree of perfection. Ex pede Herculem. You may easily see what Latin I write by one of the Dissertations in Jobum, [By his father. See note to letter of Oct. 15, 1735.] or even by the short conversation with Count Zinzendorf which is printed in the Journal, [See Journal, ii. 488-90.] I do not know that I have any theme or declamation left. But why do you not talk Latin when you are with me Do this, and you will see the excellence of Terence’s language; whereas Tully would make you talk like a mere stiff pedant. Randal’s Geographical Grammar is far the best compendium of geography which I have seen; and you need nothing more on that subject, adding only the terrestrial globe.

If you are master of Hutcheson’s [Francis Hutcheson (1694-1764), Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow x729-46. His System of Moral Philosophy was published by his son in 1755. See Journal, v. 492; and letter of March 14.] Metaphysicks and Clerc’s [Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736), professor in Amsterdam.] Ontologia, I advise you to look no farther that way; unless you would add Malebranche’s Search after Truth [Nicolas Malebranche (1658-1715). His De la Recherche de la Vrit, 1674, regards the intervention of God as necessary to bridge the gun between the human soul and body. It is mentioned in the Address among books to be read.] or the Bishop of Cork’s two books [In December of this year Wesley began reading with his preachers the Bishop of Cork's Procedure (or Progress), Extent and Limits of Human Understanding, which he thought superior to Locke’s treatise (see Journal, iv. 192; and for his earlier references, the letters of Oct. 3, 1730, and Feb. 13, 1731). Possibly the other book recommended was Dr. Browne’s Things Divine and Supernatural Conceived by Analogy with Things Natural and Human, 1733.] again. The main point is, with all and above all, study the Greek and Hebrew Bible, and the love of Christ. -- I am Yours affectionately. To Richard Tompson [8] LONDON, February 18, 1756. SIR, -- You ask, 1. ‘Can a man who has not a clear assurance that his sins are forgiven be in a state of justification’ I believe there are some instances of it. 2. ‘Can a person be in a state of justification who, being asked, “Do you know your sins are forgiven’ answers, “I am not certainly sure; but I do not entertain the least doubt of it”’ I believe he may. 3. ‘Can he who answer “I trust they are”’ It is very possible he may be in that state. 4. ‘Can any one know that his sins are forgiven while he doubts thereof’ Not at the instant when he doubts of it. But he may generally know it, though he doubts at some particular time. I answer as plainly and simply as I can, that, if I am in a mistake, I may the more easily be convinced of it. To Samuel Furly LONDON February 21, 1756.

From time to time, my love, you should tell me all you know concerning public affairs; for it is hard to depend on the authority of the newspapers for the truth of anything. If King George recovers, [George II lived till 1760. The future George III came of age on June 4, 1756.] I know there will be a lengthening of our tranquility. If God should take him away, for anything I see yet, I should quit this kingdom as soon as possible. In the meantime let you and I improve to-day. The morrow will take thought for the things of itself. [See letter of April 19.] Sister Cownley [See letter of Jan. 10.] sends her kindest love to you and Jenny. Is there something remarkable in her dream I have heard of several other uncommon notices which have been given to others in this kingdom. But I shall stay till I can see the Persons concerned and like the accounts from their own mouths. I dreamed last night that I was carried to execution and had but a few minutes to live. We had not been talking of anything of the kind over-night. What I gather hence is, While we live, let us live; that if we do not meet again here, we may in a better place -- My dear Molly, adieu! I have now yours of April 29. It is all in all to keep the issues of our heart, and by His strength we are able so to do. Draw us, and we will run after Thee! Pay the printers yourself; that is the sure way, unless Jo. Spencer [See letters of Jan. 7, March 4, and June 18.] gives you his account as I have written. I hope H. Brown [Brown was apparently engaged at the Book-Room.] will do everything you bid him. Else you must send him home. I have wrote to Mr. Blackwell from Dublin. Peace be with your spirit! To Mr. ---- CORK, May 14, 1756. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have consulted the preachers that are with me here, and they have no objection to your proposal; only it might be well if you delayed the putting it in execution till there is another traveling preacher in the Round, because otherwise many of the other Societies will suffer great loss.

If John Jones, [To assist Wesley in administering the Lord’s Supper, John Jones in 1764 was ordained by Erasmus, Bishop of Arcadia in Crete, and afterwards by the Bishop of London. See Wesley’s Veterans vi. 32; and letter of March 1, 1764.] my brothel or any other preacher has preached sharply on this head, I certainly am a stranger to it, and therefore not answerable for it. I persecute no man on this account, or any other; and yet I cannot consent that any of our lay preachers should either preach predestination or administer the sacraments to those who are under my care. But is it immoral It is immoral to think, speak, or act contrary to the love which ‘thinketh no evil.’ Now, of this both Charles and you are palpably guilty in thinking the body of the Methodists (either preachers or people) are fallen from the simplicity and uprightness of the gospel. Whatever seven or eight of the preachers may be who have warmly debated this point with you, whatever two or three hundred of the people may be who have been hurt by the disputants on either side, the main body of the Methodists never were more simple or upright than at this day. Therefore your thinking so ill of both preachers and people is a manifest breach of the law of love. And whoever is or is not fallen from the spirit of the gospel, it is certain you are for one. But after all this pother, what is the persecution concerning which you make so loud an outcry Why, some of our lay preachers did what we thought was both ill in itself and likely to do much harm among the people. Of this, complaint was made to me. And what did I do Did I expel those preachers out of our community Not so. Did I forbid them to preach any more Not so neither. Did I degrade them from itinerant to local preachers Net so much as this. I told them I thought the thing was wrong and would do hurt, and therefore advised them to do it no more. Certainly this is a new species of persecution! I cannot but think you might as well call it murder.

‘Oh, but you would have done more if they had persisted.’ That is, I would have persecuted. Whatever I would have done if things had been which were not, I have not done it yet. I have used no arbitrary, no coercive power -- nay, no power at all in this matter but that of love. I have given no man an ill word or an ill look on the account. I have not withdrawn my confidence or my conversation from any. I have dealt with every man as, if the tables were turned, I should desire he would deal with me. ‘But I would not dispute with you.’ Not for a time; not till your spirits were a little evaporated. But you argue too fast when you infer from hence that I myself cannot confute your favorite notion. You are not sure of that. But, come what will, you are resolved to try. Well, then, move fair and softly. You and Charles Perronet aver that you have a right to administer the Lord’s Supper, and that therefore you ought to administer it among the Methodists or to separate from them. If the assertion were proved, I should deny the consequence. But first, I desire proof of the assertion. Let him or you give the proof, only without any flourish or rhetorical amplifications (which exceedingly abound in all C. P.’s letters to my brother on this subject), and I will give you an answer, though we are not on even ground; for you have no business, and I have no leisure. And if you continue instant in prayer, particulady for a lowly and teachable spirit, I do not despair of your finding both that life and love which you have not lately enjoyed. -- I am Your affectionate brother I shall add a few remarks on C. P.’s letters, though the substance of them is contained in yours. ‘Some of the fundamentals of your constitution are wrong’ Our fundamentals are laid down in the Plain Account. Which of these are wrong, and yet ‘borne by you for eight years’

‘Oh inconsistency! Oh excuseless tyranny!’ &c. Flourish. Set that down for nothing. ‘These very men who themselves break the laws of the State deny us liberty of conscience.’ In plain terms, These very men who preach the gospel contrary to law do not approve of our administering the sacraments. They do not. They greatly disapprove of it; and that without any inconsistency at all, because the case is not parallel. The one is absolutely necessary to the salvation of thousands; the other not. ‘Your brother has to the last refused me liberty of conscience.’ Under what penalty This heavy charge amounts in reality to this: I still think you have no fight to administer the Lord’s Supper; in consequence of which I advise you not to do it. Can I do less or have I done more ‘I wish I could say that anything of wicked lewdness would have met with the same opposition’! Is not this pretty, Brother Norton Do you subscribe to this I think you know us better. Do we not so much as advise our preachers and people to abstain from wicked lewdness ‘Can it be denied that known wantonness, that deceit and knavery have been among us, and that little notice has been taken of it ‘I totally deny it. Much notice has been taken, by me in particular, of what evil has been done by any preacher. I have constantly examined all the parties, and have in every instance so far animadverted on the delinquent as justice joined with mercy required. ‘My crime is that I would worship Christ as His word, His Spirit, and my own conscience teach me. Let God and man be witness that we part for this and nothing else.’ Namely, because I am of a different judgment, and cannot approve of what I judge to be wrong. So says W. Darney, ‘My crime is that I would preach Christ as His word, His Spirit, and my own conscience teach me.’ But he has fir more ground for complaint than you: for we ourselves separated him from us; whereas you call God and man to witness that you separate yourself for this and nothing else - that I cannot approve what I judge to be wrong.

But this is not all your crime. You have also drank into the spirit of James Wheatley; and you have adopted his very language: you are become, like him, an accuser of your brethren. O Charles, it was time you should separate from them; for your heart was gone from them before! ‘Whatever motives of another kind might be blended with those that really belonged to your conscience, in your rejecting what I laid before you’ (not consenting that I should administer), ‘God knows.’ I know of none. I have no other motive of acting than the glory of God and the good of souls. Here again you are become not only an accuser but a false accuser and an unjust judge of your brother. ‘You grant more to others. To my certain knowledge both of you have been told for more than two years that James Morris [James Morris left Wesley in 1756. See Myles’s Chronological History; and for his share in the conversion of Toplady this year, Journal, v. 327-8n; Wright’s Life of Toplady, p. 18.] administered.’ You may as well say, ‘To my certain knowledge black is white.’ I was never told it to this, unless by C. Perronet. But whether he does or no, it is nothing to me. He never was in close connexion with us; he is now in no connexion at all. We have totally renounced him. So here is another instance of accusing, yea falsely accusing, your brethren. ‘A man may be circumcised, count his beads, or adore a cross, and still be a member of your society.’ That is, may be Papist or a Jew. I know no such instance in England or Ireland. We have many members in Ireland that were Papists, but not one that continues so. ‘Other reasons than those that could possibly relate to conscience have borne too much share in the late affair.’ I say as before, I am not conscious of it. And who art thou that judgest another’s servant ‘You have allowed that we are called to this by the Holy Ghost and God was with us in what we did.’ I allow! No more than I allow you to be archangel. I allow neither the one nor the other. I believe you felt joy or power, so called; but I do not know that it was from God, and I said,

Your general advice on this head to follow my own conscience, without any regard to consequences, or prudence, so called is unquestionably fight; and it is a rule which I have closely followed for many years, and hope to follow to my life’s end. The first of your particular advices is, ‘to keep in full view the interests of Christ’s Church in general and of practical religion; not considering the Church of England or the cause of Methodism but as subordinate thereto.’ This advice I have punctually observed from the beginning, as well as at our late Conference. You advise, secondly, ‘to keep in view also the unlawfulness of a separation from the Church of England.’ To this likewise I agree. It cannot be lawful to separate from it, unless it be unlawful to continue in it. You advise, thirdly, ‘fully to declare myself on this head, and to suffer no dispute concerning it.’ The very same thing I wrote to my brother from Ireland; and we have declared ourselves without reserve. Nor was there any at the Conference otherwise minded. Those who would have aimed at dispute had left us before. Fourthly, all our preachers as well as ourselves purpose to continue in the Church of England. Nor did they ever before so freely and explicitly declare themselves on this subject. Your last advice is, ‘That as many of our preachers as are fit for it be ordained, and that the others be fixed to certain Societies, not as preachers, but as readers or inspectors.’ You oblige me by speaking your sentiments so plainly: with the same plainness I will answer. So far as I know myself, I have no more concern for the reputation of Methodism or my own than for the reputation of Prester John. I have the same point in view as when I set out -- the promoting as I am able vital, practical religion; and in all our discipline I still aim at the continuance of the work which God has already begun in so many souls. With this view, and this only, I permitted those whom I believed God had called thereto to comfort, exhort, and instruct their brethren. And if this end can be better answered some other way, I shall subscribe to it without dray. But is that which you propose a better way This should be coolly and calmly considered.

Why you should be afraid on account of anything you said to me I do not know. Certainly, if you had said whatever was in your heart, it might have been a means of lessening your burthen and not of increasing it. I believe you have often a desire, and almost a resolution, of saying a great deal to me; but when you come to write or speak, your heart fails. Why should it Why should you repress yourself I should not despise but love you for your openness. It is the fruit and the proof of an honest heart. I know you are weak; I know a little of your particular weaknesses. But so much the more am I concerned for you as a tender, sickly flower. Away, then, with this reserve; it answers no end but to trouble and embarrass you. Tell me freely and plainly any difficulty you meet with, any enemy against whom you want help. Use me as a friend, as I hope you will use Sarah Crosby, and you will find it a blessing to your soul. It will again bring the promise of holiness near; which, indeed, always seems to be far off when we give way to any known sin, when we any way grieve the Spirit of God. There may be some rare cases wherein God has determined not to bestow His perfect love till a little before death; but this I believe is uncommon: He does not usually put off the fulfilling of His promises. Seek, and you shall find; seek earnestly, and you shall find speedily. Lift up the hands that hang down; deny yourself; take up your cross, whether that of meeting your class or any other. Fight on, and victory is at hand! -- I am, dear Miss Fury, Your affectionate servant. To Samuel Walker [5] PENRYN, September 19, 1757.

REVEEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- Nothing can be more kind than the mentioning to me whatever you think is amiss in my conduct; and the more freedom you use in doing this, the more I am indebted to you. I am thoroughly convinced that you ‘wish me well,’ and that it is this, together with a ‘concern for the common interests of religion,’ which obliges you to speak with more plainness than otherwise you would. The same motives induce me to lay aside aH reserve and tell you the naked sentiments of my heart. Two years since, eleven or twelve persons of Falmouth were members of our Society. Last year I was informed that a young man them had begun to teach them new opinions, and that soon after offence and prejudice crept in and increased till they were all torn asunder. What they have done since I know not; for they have no connection with us. I do ‘exert myself’ so far as to separate from us those that separate from the Church. But in a thousand other instances I feel the want of more resolution and firmness of spirit. Yet sometimes that may appear irresolution which is not so. I exercise as little authority as possible, because I am afraid of people’s depending upon me too much and paying me more reverence than they ought. But I proceed to the substance of your letter. You say, -- 1. ‘If you still hold the essence of justifying faith to lie in assurance, why did you encourage John Hingeston to believe his state good’ Assurance is a word I do not use because it is not scriptural. But I hold a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me is essential to if not the very essence of justifying faith. John Hingeston told me he had more than this, even a clear conviction that his sins were forgiven; although he said that conviction was not so clear now as it had been in time past.

2. ‘If you beloved Mr. Vowler [Wesley heard Mr. Vowler preach two thundering sermons at St. Agnes on Sept. 4, 1757, and spent an afternoon with him. ‘He both preaches and lives the gospel.’ He died of fever on July 30, 1758. See Journal, iv. 234, 529.] to be a gracious person and a gospel minister, why, did you not in justice to your people leave them to him’ John Hingeston assured me that Mr. Vowler also had a dear conviction of his being reconciled to God. If so, I could not deny his being a gracious person; and I heard him preach the true though not the whole gospel. But had it been the whole, there are several reasons still why I did not give up the people to him. (1) No one mentioned or intimated any such thing, nor did it once enter into my thought. But if it had, (2) I do not know that every one who preaches the truth has wisdom and experience to guide and govern a flock. I do not know that Mr. Vowler in particular has. He may or he may not. (3) I do not know whether he could or would give that flock all the advantages for holiness which they now enjoy; and to leave them to him before I was assured of this would be neither justice nor mercy. (4) Unless they also were assured of the, they could not in conscience give up themselves to him; and I have nether right nor power to dispose of them contrary to their conscience.

A sad mistake this in point of fact. For whether they are of the world or no, it is certain the world, the generality of men, good or bad, doth not and never did hear them. At this day those who hear them are an exceeding small number in comparison of those who do not. And if the body of the people in any place do attend some of them, how do they attend Just as they would a mad dog, with sticks and stones and whatever comes to hand. And this you yourself account for extremely well. Sed oportet Palaemonem esse memorem. [‘But Palaemon ought to posses a good memory.’ Palaemon was the most famous grammarian in Rome and master of Quintillian.] ‘What a figure would a small number of ministers make in the Church either of England or Scotland who should agree to maintain the plain, obvious sense of their own public standards of doctrine, and insist upon an adherence to that sense as a term of holding communion with them in the sacred institutions! Their situation in the national Church would be very uncomfortable as well as extremely ridiculous. For many enemies would soon be awakened against them, to distress and misrepresent them in various respects.’ (Page 465.) Thus much as a specimen of your veracity. I object, secondly, that you know not what faith is. You talk about it, and labor and sweat, and at last come to a most lame and impotent conclusion. You say: ‘That Christ died for me is a point not easily settled, a point which the Scripture nowhere ascertains’ (the very thought, and nearly the words, of Cardinal Bellarmine, in his dispute with our forefathers): ‘so far from it, that it affirms the final. perdition of many who have great confidence of their interest in Christ’ (this only proves that many fancy they have what they have not, which I suppose nobody will deny); ‘yea, and declares that “wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction”’ (page 14). It is so; but this is nothing to the point -- the nature of true faith.

‘Nature, these men say, begins the work’ (I know none of them who say so); ‘and then grace helps out the efforts of nature, and persuades a man, though he be not mentioned in Scripture either by name or surname, that Christ died for him’ (page 33). ‘So the Spirit whispers something to the heart of a sinner beside what He publicly speaks in the Scriptures. But will any lover of the Scriptures allow the possibility of this -- that the Spirit should ever speak a syllable to any man beside what He publicly speaks there’ (Page 35.) You will presently allow something wonderfully like it. And you suppose yourself to be a ‘lover of the Scriptures.’ ‘Some of the martyrs were assured of being the friends of Christ’ (page 398). How Which way Nether their name nor surname was mentioned in Scripture! Why, ‘the Holy Ghost assured their hearts and the hearts of the first Christians that their joy was not the joy of the hypocrite, but the beginning of eternal life. Thus their joy was made full and their love perfected by the highest enjoyments it was here capable of. Every believer finds a refreshment to his mind far superior to all the comforts of this life. They stand in God's presence, and have their joy made full in beholding the light of His countenance’ (page 402). Allow the, and we will never dispute whether the Spirit does or does not ‘whisper anything to their hearts.’ It is enough that they have ‘the Spirit of adoption, crying in their hearts, Abba, Father’; and that this ‘Spirit witnesseth with their spirits that they are the children of God.’ ‘The chief time of this agency of the Spirit is while the preachers are declaiming. And the people are in continual expectation of the season of power in heating them.’ (Page 38.) Yea, and reason good, if, as you affirm, ‘hearing is the only mean whereby God gives faith’ (page 391). But we do not affirm so much. We only maintain that ‘faith’ generally ‘cometh by hearing.’

DEAR SIR,--When it is probable I may alter my judgement or practice, I am very willing to speak upon any head. But when I am clearly and fully fixed, then I do not speak; for it would be lost labour. For this reason I did not speak the other night; because I was fully fixed. My wife picks my lock and steals my papers. Afterwards she says, 'You cannot trust me.' I answer, 'I cannot, till you restore what you stole and promise to steal no more.' She replies, 'I will burn them, or lodge them with another, on such terms.' I answer nothing. Do you ask, Why so! I answer to you: (1) I will not consent my goods shall be burnt, much less accept it as a favour: I require her to restore them. (2) I will not thank her for lodging them with another: I require that they be restored to me. (3) I will not so much as consider the terms: I require the restitution of my own goods without any terms. And I know you would do so were it your case. And so would any man of common sense. 'But she will not restore them.' Then she must keep them. But let her not blame me because I cannot trust her. Permit me to add one word to you. You think yourself a match for her; but you are not. By her exquisite art she has already made you think ill of two very deserving women. [Mrs. Ryan and Mrs. Crosby. See next letter and that of July 12, 1758.] And you have been more than once much puzzled what to think of me! Nor could you help thinking me a little in the wrong. I am almost afraid she likewise entertains you with the faults of many in the Society; the knowing of which (be they real or feigned) does you no good at all. O sir, let us look inward; let us live at home! The more we know of our own faults and the less of other people's, the more will the work of God prosper in our hearts. Wishing all happiness to you and yours, I am, dear sir, -- Your affectionate servant From Ebenezer Blackwell Editor's Introductory Notes: 1759 [2]

I am persuaded your Ladyship still remembers in your prayers Your willing servant for Christ's sake. To the Right Honourable the Countess of Huntingdon, In London. To Ebenezer Blackwell NORWICH, March 12, 1759. DEAR SIR,--You have entirely satisfied me as to what I was afraid of. [See letter of March 2, and Blackwell's answer. His relations with his wife were easier for the moment.] We are at present upon pretty good terms; and I am not without hope that this good understanding will continue for some time longer. I am sure it will, if He who has the hearts of all men in His hand sees it to be expedient for me. You have never yet spoken to me with more freedom than was agreeable to me. Your freedom is the best proof of your friendship. There are not many that will deal freely with me; nor, indeed, are there many from whom I would desire it, lest it should hurt themselves without profiting me. But I do desire it of you; and do not doubt but it will profit me, as it has done in time past. I know not if in all my life I have had so critical a work on my hands as that wherein I am now engaged. I am endeavouring to gather up those who were once gathered together and afterwards scattered by James Wheatley. [On Nov. 3, 1758, Wheatley had offered him the Tabernacle. Wesley preached there on Dec. 21, and took the lease on the 26th. He found on March 7 that 'the Society, once consisting of many hundred members, was mouldered into nothing.' See Journal, iv. 290-6, 301.] I have reunited about seventy of them, and hope this evening to make up an hundred. But many of them have wonderful spirits, having been always accustomed to teach their teachers; so that how they will bear any kind of discipline I cannot tell.

Oblige Dr. Cockburn as far as possibly you can. We can bear with little tempers, though we do not approve of them. I can say little now to what T. Tobias [One of Alwood's colleagues. A letter from him to Wesley is given in Atmore's Memorial, PP. 429-30. He died about the year 1767.] writes of. I should think a patient, mild man might quiet two scolding women. Billy, pray and labour with your might. You may direct your next to me at Epworth.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. I doubt Sister Hall [Ruth Hall (born at Woolley, near Barnsley, in 1732) did much for the spread of Methodism in and around York. See Lyth's Methodism in York, pp. 69-71; Arminian Mag. 1781, p. 477, 1789, p. 303.] forgets me. To his Wife GRIMSBY, April 9, 1759. MY DEAR MOLLY,--I must write once more. Then, if I hear nothing from you, I have done. About a year ago, while I suspected nothing less, you opened my bureau and took out many of my letters and papers. Mr. Blackwell advised me, before you, if you refused to restore them, to send that instant for a smith, and break open your bureau and take my own. To prevent which you restored them. But it was not long before you robbed me again, and showed my private letters to more than twenty different persons on purpose to make them have an ill opinion of me. For the same end you spoke much evil of me while I was several hundred miles off. Your presence was that I conversed with Sister Ryan and Crosby. [See letters of July 12, 1758, and March 2and Oct. 23, 1759.] I know it was only a presence, and told your friends the humouring you herein would leave matters just where they were. I knew giving a person drink would not cure a dropsy. However, at their instance I made the experiment. I broke off all correspondence with them, whether by speaking or writing. For a while, having gained your point, you was in a good humour. Afterwards it was just as I said. You robbed me again; and your sin (as before) carried its own punishment: for the papers you had stole harrowed up your soul and tore your poor fretful spirit in pieces.

Notwithstanding this, you wrote me two loving letters. (I hope, not with a design of reading them to other people; which I shall not suspect if you assure me you have not read or shown them in part or in whole to any one.) So that I was a little surprised when at our meeting in Colchester I found you throughly out of humour. It really seemed as if you was heartily vexed by the papers you had taken, and so were resolved to have it out with me. Accordingly you could not refrain from throwing squibs at me even in company, [He was at Colchester on March 19.] and from speaking with such keenness when we were alone, as I think no wife ought to speak to an husband--such as I apprehend you could not have used decently to any but Noah Vazeille. [Her first husband.] Perhaps you may now take the greater liberty, because, having stripped me of all my papers, you imagine it is now absolutely impossible for me to justify myself. But you are under a mistake. To all that know me my word is a sufficient justification. And if anything more is needful, I know One that is able to say to the Grave, 'Give back!' Yea, and if He say it to Jealousy, cruel as the Grave, it shall hear and obey His voice. Wishing you the blessing which you now want above any other--namely, unfeigned and deep repentance,--I remain Your much injured yet still affectionate Husband. To Mrs. Wesley, At the Foundery, London. To Sir James Lowther, afterwards Earl of Lonsdale Editor's Introductory Notes: 1759 [6] LONDON, May 16, 1759. DEAR SIR,--Since I received your favour I have had many thoughts on worldly and Christian prudence. What is the nature of each! How do they differ! How may we distinguish one from the other!

DEAR BROTHER,--Where you are I know not, and how you are I know not; but I hope the best. Neither you nor John Jones [See letter of June 1.] has ever sent me your remarks upon that tract in the late volume of Sermons. [The fourth volume, which included six tracts. Thoughts on Christian Perfection is the fifth. The doctrine had been largely considered at the London Conference in Aug. 1759, and the tract was published soon after. The Preface to it is dated Bristol, Oct. 16, 1759. See letter of June 12, 1759.] You are not kind. Why will you not do all you can to make me wiser than I am Sam. Furly told me his objections at once; so we canvassed them without loss of time. [See previous letter.] Do you know what is done, anything or nothing, with regard to the small edition of the Notes [First edition, 4to, 1755. Third, corrected, Bristol; Grabham & Pine, 1760-2, 12mo, 3 vols, See letter of June 18, 1756.] Mr. I'Anson writes me a long account of the Sussex affair. It is of more consequence than our people seem to apprehend. If we do not exert ourselves, it may drive us to that bad dilemma--Leave preaching, or leave the Church. We have reason to thank God it is not come to this yet. Perhaps it never may. In this kingdom nothing is wanting but a few more zealous and active labourers. James Morgan, [See letter of April 26.] John Johnson, [John Johnson became an itinerant preacher in 1755, and after sixteen years settled at Lisburn. For some time he was General Superintendent in Ireland. He died on Dec. 29, 1803, at the age of seventy eight. See letter of Sept. 26, 1784, to him.] and two or three more do their best; the rest spare themselves. I hope Sally and your little ones are well. Where and how is my wife I wrote to her on Saturday last. Adieu! Where must the Conference be, at Leeds or Bristol If we could but chain or gag the blatant beast, there would be no difficulty. [12] To Miss March SLIGO, June 27, 1760. A day or two ago I was quite surprised to find among my papers a letter of yours, which I apprehend I have not answered.

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.

SIR,--In your last paper we had a letter from a very angry gentleman (though he says he had put himself into as good humour as possible), who personates a clergyman, but is, I presume, in reality a retainer to the theatre. He is very warm against the people vulgarly called Methodists, 'ridiculous impostors,' 'religious buffoons,' as he styles them; 'saint-errants' (a pretty and quaint phrase), full of 'inconsiderateness, madness, melancholy, enthusiasm'; teaching a 'knotty and unintelligible system' of religion--yea, a 'contradictory or self-contradicting'; nay, a 'mere illusion,' a 'destructive scheme, and of pernicious consequence'; since 'an hypothesis is a very slippery foundation to hazard our all upon.' Methinks the gentleman has a little mistaken his character: he seems to have exchanged the sock for the buskin. But, be this as it may, general charges prove nothing. Let us come to particulars. Here they are: 'The basis of Methodism is the grace of assurance' (excuse a little impropriety of expression), 'regeneration being only a preparative to it.' Truly this is somewhat 'knotty and unintelligible.' I will endeavour to help him out. The fundamental doctrine of the people called Methodists is, Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the true faith;--the faith which works by love; which, by means of the love of God and our neighbour, produces both inward and outward holiness. This faith is an evidence of things not seen; and he that thus believes is regenerate, or born of God; and he has the witness in himself (call it assurance or what you please): the Spirit itself witnesses with his spirit that he is a child of God. 'From what scripture' every one of these propositions 'is collected' any common Concordance will show. 'This is the true portraiture of Methodism,' so called. 'A religion superior to this' (the love of God and man) none can 'enjoy,' either in time or in eternity. But the Methodists do not hold 'good works meritorious.' No; neither does ours, or any other Protestant Church. But meantime they hold it is their bounder duty, as they have time, to do good unto all men; and they know the day is coming wherein God will reward every man according to his works.

But they 'act with sullenness and sourness, and account innocent gaiety and cheerfulness a crime almost as heinous as sacrilege.' Who does Name the men. I know them not, and therefore doubt the fact; though it is very possible you account that kind of gaiety innocent which I account both foolish and sinful. I know none who denies that true religion--that is, love, the love of God and our neighbour--'elevates our spirits, and renders our minds cheerful and serene.' It must, if it be accompanied (as we believe it always is) with peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, and if it produces a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man. But they 'preach up religion only to accomplish a lucrative design, to fleece their hearers, to accumulate wealth, to rob and plunder, which they esteem meritorious.' We deny the fact. Who is able to prove it Let the affirmer produce his witnesses, or retract. This is the sum of your correspondent's charge, not one article of which can be proved; but whether it can or no, 'we have made them,' says he, 'a theatrical scoff and the common jest and scorn of every chorister in the street.' It may be so; but whether you have done well herein may still admit of a question. However, you cannot but wish 'we had some formal Court of Judicature erected' (happy Portugal and Spain!) 'to take cognizance of such matters.' Nay, cur optas quod habes [Horace's Satires, 1. iii. 126.] Why do you wish for that you have already The Court is erected: the holy, devout playhouse is become the House of Mercy; and does take cognizance hereof 'of all pretenders to sanctity, and happily furnishes us with a discerning spirit to distinguish betwixt right and wrong.' But I do not stand to their sentence; I appeal to Scripture and reason, and by these alone consent to be judged. --I am, sir, Your humble servant. To Mrs. Abigail Brown LONDON, November 21, 1760.

But you complain, I have 'passed over the most interesting and material circumstances' in your letter. I apprehend just the contrary: I think nothing in it is passed over which is at all material. Nor will I knowingly pass over anything material in this; though I am not a dealer in many words. You say: (1) 'You have impiously apostatized from those principles of religion which you undertook to defend.' I hope not. I still (as I am able) defend the Bible, with the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies of our Church; and I do not defend or espouse any other principles, to the best of my knowledge, than those which are plainly contained in the Bible as well as in the Homilies and Book of Common Prayer. You blame me (2) for teaching heterodox doctrine concerning faith and good works (I am obliged to put the meaning of many of your straggling sentences together as well as I can). As to the former, which you still awkwardly and unscripturally style the grace of assurance (a phrase I never use), you say: 'You have given it a true Methodistical gloss. But where are the proofs from Scripture Not one single text.' Sir, that is your ignorance. I perceive the Bible is a book you are not acquainted with. Every sentence in my account is a text of Scripture. I purposely refrained from quoting chapter and verse, because I expected you would bewray your ignorance, and show that you was got quite out of your depth. As your old friend Mr. Vellum says, 'You will pardon me for being jocular.' To one who seriously desired information on this point I would explain it a little farther. Faith is an evidence or conviction of things not seen, of God, and the things of God. This is faith in general. More particularly it is a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. This directly leads us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling; not with slavish, painful fear, but with the utmost diligence, which is the proper import of that expression. When this evidence is heightened to exclude all doubt, it is the plerophory or full assurance of faith. But any degree of true faith prompts the believer to be zealous of good works.

On this head you say: 'Your definition of good works' (truly I gave none at all) 'is still more extraordinary. You shall have it in your own words, where you quarrel with me for esteeming them meritorious,--No, neither does ours or any other Protestant Church; but meantime they hold it their bounder duty as they have time to do good unto all men. And they know the day is coming wherein God will render to every man according to his works. Admirable contradiction! Was you intoxicated, or jure diving mad Is man to be judged for his deeds done in this life, when it is immaterial whether he does any or not These are your own words, sir.' What That 'it is immaterial whether he does any good works or not' Hey-day! How is this O, I cry your mercy, sir, now I find where the shoe pinches. You have stumbled on an hard word which you do not understand. But give me leave, sir, to assure you (you may take my word for once) that meritorious and material are not all one. Accordingly not only the Church of England but all other Protestant Churches allow good works to be material, and yet (without any contradiction) deny them to be meritorious. They all likewise allow that the genuine fruit of faith is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; and consequently that cheerfulness or serenity of spirit (a mixture of that peace and joy) is so far from being a crime, that it is the undoubted privilege of every real Christian. I know no Methodist (so called) who is of another mind: if you do, tell me the man. I believe 'it is not your intention to do this.' But you must either do it or bear the blame. You blame me (3) for allowing of lay preachers. This is too knotty a point to be settled at present. I can only desire those who want farther information therein to read calmly A Letter to a Clergyman [See letter of May 4, 1748, and Works, viii. 221-6 ] or the latter part of the third Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion.

You blame me (4) for acting from 'a lucrative principle,' though you 'deny you used the word robbing.' (True; for you only said, 'To rob and plunder.') In proof of this you refer to the houses I have built (in Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne). But don't you know, sir, those houses are none of mine I made them over to trustees long ago. I have food to eat and raiment to put on; and I will have no more till I turn Turk or Pagan.--I am, sir, in very good humour, Your well-wisher. PS.--It is not very material whether T. H., Somebody, and Philodemus are the same individual or not. I have subjoined his Questions with my Answers; though they have all been answered fifty times before. Q. 1. Whether a very considerable body of the Methodists do not declare that there can be no good hopes of salvation without Assurance A. Yes: if you mean by that term a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. Q. 2. Whether they do not put a greater confidence in what they call Regeneration than in the moral or social duties of life A. No. They hold the due discharge of all these duties to be absolutely necessary to salvation. The latter part of this query, 'of the mercy of the Divine Being,' seems to have lost its way. Q. 3. Whether the Stage in later years has ever ridiculed anything really serious A. Yes; a thousand times. Who that reads Dryden's, Wycherley's, or Congreve's plays can doubt it Q. 4. Whether anything can be religious that has not right reason to countenance it A. No. True religion is the highest reason. It is indeed wisdom, virtue, and happiness in one. To Samuel Furly LONDON, December 9, 1760. DEAR SAMMY,--I am determined to publish nothing against Mr. Hervey unless his answer to my letter is published. Indeed, it is not his; it is Mr. Cudworth's, [See letter of Nov. 29, 1758.] both as to matter and manner. So let it pass for the present.

In the fourth paragraph you say: 'Did you never use that phrase the grace of assurance ' Never, that I remember, either in preaching or writing; both your ears and eyes have been very unhappy if they informed you I did: and, how many soever look either sorrowful or joyful, that will not prove the contrary. 'But produce your texts.' What, for a phrase I never use I pray you have me excused. But (as I said before) 'from what scripture every one of my propositions is collected any common Concordance will show.' To save you trouble, I will for once point out those scriptures: 'Whosoever will be saved must believe' (Mark xvi. 16; Acts xvi. 31); 'This faith works by love' (Gal. v. 6); it is 'an evidence of things not seen' (Heb. xi. 1); 'He that believes is born of God' (1 John v. 1); 'He has the witness in himself' (verse 10); 'The Spirit itself witnesses with his spirit that he is a child of God' (Rom. viii. 16). In the fifth you say: 'You embrace any shift to twist words to your own meaning.' This is saying just nothing. Any one may say this of any one. To prove it is another point. In the sixth you say: 'No Protestant divine ever taught your doctrine of Assurance.' I hope you know no better; but it is strange you should not. Did you never see Bishop Hall's Works Was not he a Protestant divine Was not Mr. Perkins, Bolton, Dr. Sibbs, Dr. Preston, Archbishop Leighton Inquire a little farther; and do not run thus hand over head, asserting you know not what. By assurance (if we must use the expression) I mean 'a confidence which a man hath in God that by the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven and he reconciled to the favour of God.' Stop! Do not run your head into a noose again. These are the words of the Homily. In the seventh you grant 'that works are not meritorious unless accompanied with faith.' No, nor then neither. But pray do not talk of this any more till you know the difference between meritorious and rewardable; otherwise your ignorance will cause you to blunder on without shame and without end.

In your third letter you say: 'None of the principles of the Methodists have a more fatal tendency than the doctrine of Assurance.' I allow it; and it is past your skill to prove that this has any fatal tendency at all, unless as you wonderfully explain it in the following words: 'They insist that themselves are sure of salvation, but that all others are in a damnable state!' Who do? Not I, nor any that I know but Papists. Therefore all that you add to disprove this, which no one affirms, is but beating the air, 'But St. Paul commands us to pass the time of our sojourning here in fear.' Indeed, he does not; your memory fails: but St. Peter does, and that is as well.

Your fourth (for want of a better) is to serve for a reply to my answer. In this you stoutly say: 'Sir, your performance is frivolous and fallacious.' Very well; but others must judge of that. 'Shocks, sir, or violent operations of the Spirit are too fully evidenced by your trances, ecstasies, and I know not what.' I assure you, neither do I; but if you please to tell me, when you do know a little of the matter, I will give you what satisfaction I can. 'These appear in the practices of your followers, and as such must destroy free agency.' Nay, sir, you are now too severe, especially in that keen 'as such.' 'As you then assert such practices, you are (excuse the harshness of the expression) an enemy to religion and a deceiver of the people.' Sir, I do excuse you. I am pretty well used to such expressions: if they hurt not you, they hurt not me. 'Until you publish in plain, intelligible words your scheme of principles, it is impossible to say what you are.' I have done it ten times over, particularly in The Principles of a Methodist, the Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion, and (what I am not without hope might be intelligible even to you) Instructions for Children. 'I must be plain with you: you seem, sir, to have as much knowledge of the Scriptures as a Mahometan.' Sir, I thank you; and I presume you do not expect any other answer to this. 'That you are an enthusiast, a very great enthusiast, not I, let your own Journals demonstrably prove.' Nay, why not you? I fear my Journals will not give such proof as will satisfy any impartial person. 'As to dogmas, I do not know that it is good English: I know it is false dog-Latin.' Now, I really thought it was neither Latin nor English: I took it to be mere heathen Greek. Whenever you please to favour the public with your name and place of abode, you may perhaps (if I have leisure) hear farther from Your humble servant and well-wisher. To the Editor of the 'London Chronicle' [3] LONDON, February 19, 1761.

But farther: it is a doctrine of your Church that the intention of the administrator is essential to the validity of the sacraments which are administered by him. Now, are you assured of the intention of every priest from whom you have received the Host? If not, you do not know but what you received as the sacrament of the altar was no sacrament at all. Are you assured of the intention of the priest who baptized you? If not, perhaps you are not baptized at all. To come close to the point in hand: if you pass for a priest, are you assured of the intention of the bishop that ordained you? If not, you may happen to be no priest, and so all your ministry is nothing worth: nay, by the same rule he may happen to be no bishop. And who can tell how often this has been the case? But if there has been only one instance in a thousand years, what becomes of your uninterrupted succession? This ad hominem. But I have a word more ad rem. Can a man teach what he does not know? Is it possible a man should teach others what he does not know himself? Certainly it is not. Can a priest, then, teach his hearers the way to heaven marked out in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount if he does not know or understand the way himself? Nothing is more impossible. But how many of your priests know nothing about it! What avails, then, their commission to teach what they cannot teach, because they know it not? Did God, then, send these men on a fool's errand? send them to do what they cannot do? O say not so! And what will be the event of their attempting to teach they know not what? Why, 'if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit.' To Sarah Moore LONDON, March 3, 1761.

You therein say: 'If you sent me the books to inform me of an error which I had publicly advanced, pardon me if I say I know numbers who call themselves Methodists assert their assurance of salvation at the very time they wallow in sins of the deepest dye.' Permit me, sir, to speak freely. I do not doubt the fact. But (1) Those who are connected with me do not call themselves Methodists. Others call them by that nickname, and they cannot help it; but I continually warn them not to pin it upon themselves. (2) We rarely use that ambiguous expression of 'Christ's righteousness imputed to us.' (3) We believe a man may be a real Christian without being 'assured of his salvation.' (4) We know no man can be assured of salvation while he lives in any sin whatever. (5) The wretches who talk in that manner are neither Methodists nor Moravians, but followers of William Cudworth, James Relly, and their associates, who abhor us as much as they do the Pope, and ten times more than they do the devil. If you oppose these, so do I; and have done privately and publicly for these twenty years.

DEAR SIR,--Methinks it is a long time since I saw or heard anything of you. I hope, however, that Mrs. Blackwell and you are not only alive, but more alive than ever, seeking and enjoying something more than King George is likely to find either at his wedding or his coronation. [George III was married to Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz on Sept. 8, and crowned on Sept. 22.] And can you likewise give me a comfortable account of Miss Freeman, both as to her health and her spirit? I often think of her, and sometimes have a mind to send her another letter, though she is one in my debt already. Mr. Venn was so kind as to come over hither yesterday and spend the evening with us. [This visit of Henry Venn is not mentioned in the Journal, but another is noticed on July 24. See next letter.] I am a little embarrassed on his account, and hardly know how to act. Several years before he came to Huddersfield some of our preachers went thither, carrying their lives in their hands, and with great difficulty established a little, earnest Society. These eagerly desire them to preach there still; not in opposition to Mr. Venn (whom they love, esteem, and constantly attend), but to supply what they do not find in his preaching. It is a tender point. Where there is a gospel ministry already, we do not desire to preach; but whether we can leave off preaching because such an one comes after is another question, especially when those who were awakened and convinced by us beg and require the continuance of our assistance. I love peace, and follow it; but whether I am at liberty to purchase it at such price I really cannot tell.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--If local preachers who differ from us will keep their opinions to themselves, then they may preach in our Societies; otherwise they must not. And upon this condition we are all willing to receive William Darney into connexion with us. The sooner you set out for Whitehaven the better. The Society there need not be frightened at a married preacher, considering we have paid forty pounds of their debt out of the collection. And if the expense for wives be too heavy, I will help them out. Do all you can to propagate the books in that circuit and to fulfil the office of an Assistant.--I am, with love to Sister Lowes, Your affectionate friend and brother. [See letters of March 6, 1759 (to him), and Oct. 30, 1761.] Mr. Lowes, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To Grace Walton LONDON, September 8, 1761. SISTER,--If a few more persons come in when you are meeting, either enlarge four or five minutes on the question you had, with a short exhortation (perhaps for five or six minutes, sing and pray). [See letters of Feb. 14, 1761, and March 18, 1769.] I think, and always, its meaning is this: 'I suffer not a woman to teach in a congregation, nor thereby to assert authority over the man . . . God has invested with this prerogative; whereas teaching . I ask you some more questions, which you may answer as soon as you have opportunity: Had you then, or have you had since, a witness that you would never finally perish? Have you a witness that sin shall never enter more? Have you a witness that you shall no more offend God? If so, what need have you to watch against sin! Do you ever use self-examination? At what times or in what meaning? Do you always see God? Does no cloud ever interpose? Are you as sure you see Him as that you are living? Does nothing ever dim your sight of God? Have you an experimental proof of the ever-blessed Trinity? Is your mind always stayed on God? Do your thoughts never wander from Him in prayer, in business, or in travelling? What are you looking for now?--I am Your affectionate brother. To Matthew Lowes LONDON, October 30, 1761.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--The thing is settled. Thomas Newall [Thomas Newall became a preacher in 1761, and retired in 1780 .] is to labour with you in the Whitehaven Circuit, and see that you break up fresh ground. In the meantime William Darney is to divide the Allendale Circuit with T. Hanby. [Thomas Hanby, born in Carlisle in 1733; President in 1794. Wesley ordained him on Aug. 1, 1785, with John Pawson and Joseph Taylor, 'three of our well-tried preachers,' to minister in Scotland. See Wesley's Veterans, ii. 51-77.] As to maintenance, first let the Society do what they can. And they have good encouragement. Secondly, at Christmas I will make up what is wanting to you and Sister Lowes. 'Dwell in the land, and be doing good, and verily thou shalt be fed.'--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. [See letters of Sept. 8, 1761, and Jan. 25, 1762, to him.] See that you perform the whole office of an Assistant. To Mrs. Ryan LONDON, November 12, 1761. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your letter gave me much satisfaction. You answer me simply and clearly. So much the rather I will ask you some more questions, which you may answer as soon as you have opportunity. [See letter of Nov. 4, 1758, to her.] Had you then, or have you had since, a witness that you should never finally perish? Have you a witness that you shall no more offend God? If so, what need have you to watch against sin! Do you ever use self-examination? At what times or in what manner? Do you always see God? Does no cloud ever interpose? Are you as sure you see Him as that you are alive? Does nothing ever dim your sight of God? Have you an experimental proof of the ever-blessed Trinity? Is your mind always stayed on God? Do your thoughts never wander from Him in prayer, in business, or in travelling? What are you looking for now?--I am Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, December 26, 1761.

When you was justified, you had a direct witness that your sins were forgiven; afterward this witness was frequently intermitted, and yet you did not doubt of it. In like manner, you have had a direct witness that you are saved from sin; and this witness is frequently intermitted, and yet even then you do not doubt of it. But I much doubt if God withdraws either the one witness or the other without some occasion given on our part. I never knew any one receive the abiding witness gradually; therefore I incline to think this also is given in a moment. But there will be still after this abundant room for a gradual growth in grace. To Matthew Lowes LONDON, February 13, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Order concerning Brother Newall as you see good. If he is not wanted in the Manchester Round, I believe he would be welcome in James Oddie's. [See letters of Aug. 15, 1761, and of Jan. 25, 1762 (to Lowes).] You must not be surprised if there is a deadness in many places during the winter season. But the spring will return. Fear nothing. Hope belongs to us. Fight on, and conquer.-- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Rankin [2] LONDON, February 20, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--By all means go into Sussex again. And you may continue in that circuit till another preacher comes. I trust God has sent you thither for the good of others and of your own soul. Be exact in observing and in enforcing all the Rules of our Society. Then you will see more and more fruit of your labour.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Henry Brooke [3] LONDON, March 1, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear that you continue in the good way. Never leave off a duty because you are tempted in it. You may be more tempted than usual on fasting days; and yet you may receive a blessing thereby. I expect to be either in Dublin or Cork about the end of this month. I have not, since I have been in London, heard anything of Tommy Bethel. [The Diary for Oct. 15, 1785, has: '1 dinner, conversed, prayer, Mr. Bethell.'] I believe the letters are safely delivered.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, March I, 1762.

MY DEAR SISTER, -- 1. So far as I know what will make me most holy and most useful I know what is the will of God. 2. Certainly it is possible for persons to be as devoted to God in a married as in a single state. 3. I believe John Downes is throughly desirous of being wholly devoted to God, and that (if you alter your condition at all) you cannot choose a more proper person.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bennis [11] PEMBROKE, August 23, 1763. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You did well to write. This is one of the means which God generally uses to convey either light or comfort. Even while you are writing you will often find relief; frequently while we propose a doubt it is removed. There is no doubt but what you at first experienced was a real foretaste of the blessing, although you were not properly possessed of it till the Whit Sunday following. But it is very possible to cast away the gift of God, or to lose it by little and little; though I trust this is not the case with you: and yet you may frequently be in heaviness, and may find your love to God not near so warm at some times as it is at others. Many wanderings likewise, and many deficiencies, are consistent with pure love; but the thing you mean is the abiding witness of the Spirit touching this very thing. And this you may boldly claim on the warrant of that word, ‘We have received the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things which are freely given to us of God.’ -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper [12] BRISTOL, September 3, 1763.

Salvation from sin is a deeper and higher work than either you or Sarah Ryan can conceive. But do not imagine (as we are continually prone to do) that it lies in an indivisible point. You experienced a taste of it when you were justified; you since experienced the thing itself, only in a low degree; and God gave you His Spirit that you might know the things which He had freely given you. Hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast unto the end. You are continually apt to throw away what you have for what you want. However, you are right in looking for a farther instantaneous change as well as a constant gradual one. But it is not good for you to be quite alone; you should converse frequently as well as freely with Miss Johnson, and any other that is much alive. You have great need of this. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

DEAR BROTHER,--If the parties require it, I will re-hear the cause of William Warren and Abraham Ore [Evidently some disputed matter in Bristol.]; but I do not apprehend there is anything to be said more than what you have heard already. I read Rollin's Belles-Lettres [The publication of extracts from the French historian was probably under consideration, but nothing was done.] several years ago. Some things I liked; some I did not. Mark in him what you admire, and I will give it a second reading and a farther consideration. You 'have no thoughts of venturing to London before May'! Then I must indeed 'do the best I can.' So I will comply with the advice of the Stewards, as well as my own judgement, and insist upon John Jones's assisting me on Sunday. [He was compelled to ask Jones to assist in the heavy sacramental services. See Journal, v. 47n; and letter of Sept. 3, 1756, to Nicholas Norton] I have delayed all this time purely out of tenderness to you. Adieu! To Mrs. Freeman [2] LONDON, March 2, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--Such love as yours is need not be ashamed. You must make me amends for anything past that looks unkind by altering it for the time to come. You have no reason to doubt of the work of God. It partly shines by its own light. And when that is not sufficient (as in times of temptation), a clear witness shall be superadded. And see that you strengthen your brethren, particularly those who are tempted to give up their confidence. O lift up the hands that hang down! Help those especially who did once taste of pure love. My will has nothing to do in my coming over this spring. If a ship be ready, I shall embark. O Jenny, look up and receive more!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Freeman. To Samuel Furly LEWISHAM, March 6, 1764.

I doubt you had a dunce for a tutor at Cambridge, and so set out wrong. Did he never tell you that, of all men living, a clergyman should 'talk with the vulgar' yea, and write, imitating the language of the common people throughout, so far as consists with purity and propriety of speech [See letter of Jan. 14.] Easiness, therefore, is the first, second, and third point; and stiffness, apparent exactness, artificialness of style the main defect to be avoided, next to solecism and impropriety. You point wrong, Sammy: you aim at a wrong mark. If he was a standard for any one (which I cannot possibly allow), yet Dr. Middleton [See letter of Jan. 4, 1749.] is no standard for a preacher--no, not for a preacher before the University. His diction is stiff, formal, affected, unnatural. The art glares, and therefore shocks a man of true taste. Always to talk or write like him would be as absurd as always to walk in minuet step. O tread natural, tread easy, only not careless. Do not blunder or shamble into impropriety. If you will imitate, imitate Mr. Addison or Dr. Swift. You will then both save trouble and do more good.--I am, with love to Nancy, dear Sammy, Your ever affectionate brother. To Mrs. Ryan [3] WEDNESBURY, March 25, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad you wrote, and that you write so freely. There needs no reserve between you and me. It is very easy for you to judge concerning what you have heard. Who are they that 'always praise me' (that is, to my face). I really know none such. You are said to do so. But I think you are clear of the accusation. Certain it is, then, I cleave to none upon this account. For I know not the men. But you 'do not take those to be your real friends who tell you what they think wrong.' Do I not take Sally Ryan and Mary Bosanquet to be my real friends And certainly they have told me more of this kind than all the world besides.

Will it be agreeable to my dear Lady Maxwell that I trouble her with a letter so soon and that I write with so little ceremony that I use no compliment, but all plainness of speech If it be not, you must tell me so, and I shall know better how to speak for the time to come. Indeed, it would be unpleasing to me to use reserve: the regard I feel for you strongly inclines me to 'think aloud,' to tell you every thought which rises in my heart. I think God has taken unusual pains, so to speak, to make you a Christian;-- a Christian indeed, not in name, worshipping God in spirit and in truth; having in you the mind that was in Christ, and walking as Christ also walked. He has given you affliction upon affliction; He has used every possible means to unhinge your soul from things of earth, that it might fix on Him alone. How far the design of His love has succeeded I could not well judge from a short conversation. Your Ladyship will therefore give me leave to inquire, Is the heaviness you frequently feel merely owing to weakness of body and the loss of near relations I will hope it is not. It might, indeed, at first spring from these outward pressures. But did not the gracious Spirit of God strike in, and take occasion from these to convince you of sin, of unbelief, of the want of Christ And is not the sense of this one great cause, if not the greatest, of your present distress If so, the greatest danger is, either that you should stifle that conviction, not suffering yourself to be convinced that you are all sin, the chief of sinners; or that you should heal the wound slightly, that you should rest before you know Christ is yours, before His Spirit witnesses with your spirit that you are a child of God. My dear Lady, be not afraid to know yourself--yea, to know yourself as you are known. How soon, then, will you know your Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous! And why not this day why not this hour If you feel your want, I beseech the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to look upon you now! O give Thy servant power to believe!

I desire you to read the proposal and preface in every Society within your circuit; then enforce it, as you see best, both in public and private conversation. Spare no pains. Exert yourself. See what you can do. Give this proof of your love for the truth, for the people, and for Your affectionate friend and brother. N.B.--Be careful to keep an exact list of all the subscribers' names in each Society, and also to leave a copy thereof with the person who takes care of the books. To Thomas Rankin [23] LONDON, November 6, 1764. DEAR TOMMY,--If the Crowan or Buryan Society are able to bear the expense of building themselves, we have no objection; but we must not increase our debt this year. This is what we determined. If you do build, build large enough. In general, we do not pay rent out of the public stock, but get help from friends in the circuit. For once we may allow forty shillings. I shall write to Plymouth Dock this post. I hope John Catermole (a sound man) will come and help you. I shall either mend William Darney or end him. He must not go on in this manner. Spread the little tracts wherever you go. You know the solid good which results therefrom. Go on; spend and be spent for a good Master.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Brother Charles [24] LONDON, December 7, 1764. DEAR BROTHER,--Be so kind as to show this to T. Lewis and M. Davis: so I may answer theirs and yours together. What need of a formal petition Would it not be just as effectual for me to write a letter to the Corporation, in the name of all the Bristol Methodists, urging, first, Mr. Witherspoon's argument against the English theatre; secondly, the matter of fact, the actual mischief done thereby; and then gently and respectfully making the application What think you Ecquid novisti rectius ['Do you know any better way'] Send me word without delay. Sister Suky was in huge agonies for five days, and then died in the full assurance of faith. Some of her last words (after she had been speechless for some time) were, 'Jesus is come! Heaven is here!'

DEAR TOMMY,--I will send a man down to W. Darney [See letter of Nov. 6.] that is as rough as himself--namely, T. Bryant. But he is much changed for the better, and I think will not now jar with you. You need not, indeed, be very near one another: Cornwall is wide enough. Otherwise let T. Bryant stay in Devonshire and Peter Price move westward. [Price was admitted on trial as a preacher in Aug. 1765.] John Catermole sticks fast at Kingswood, and can get no farther. I wish you could conquer J. Paynter too. And who knows Love may do the deed. Want of sleep will occasion hoarseness. You should sleep at least six hours in twenty-four, either at once or at twice. For hoarseness look into the Primitive Physick; and try, one after another if need be, the garlic, the apple, the conserve, and the balsam. I know not how you will procure subscribers to Goodwin [See letters of Nov. 2and Dec. 31.] while you are pressing the general subscription.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend. To the Mayor and Corporation of Bristol LONDON, December 20, 1764. GENTLEMEN,--Both my brother and I and all who have any connexion with us are extremely sensible of our obligations to you for the civility which you have shown us on all occasions; and we cannot but feel ourselves deeply interested in whatever we apprehend in any degree to concern your honour or the general good and prosperity of the City of Bristol. This occasions my giving you the present trouble, which (whether it has any farther effect or no) you will please to receive as a testimony of the high regard we shall ever retain for you.

1765 LONDON, January 1, 1765. SIR,--If you please to insert in your Magazine my answer to a letter directed to me in November last, you will oblige Your humble servant. SIR,--I am obliged to you for your queries and remarks; and so I shall be to any who will point out anything wherein they think I have been mistaken. It would not be strange if there should be many mistakes in the Compendium of Natural Philosophy, as philosophy is what for many years I have only looked into at leisure hours. Accordingly in the Preface of that treatise I said, 'I am throughly sensible there are many who have more ability as well as leisure for such a work than me; but as none of them undertakes it, I have myself made some little attempt in the following volumes.' Q. 1. 'You say the Sun revolves upon his axis once in twenty-seven hours. Should it not be once in twenty-seven days nearly' Yes, it should. This was an error of the press. Q. 2. 'You say he is supposed to be abundantly larger than the Earth. Is it not demonstrable that he is so' I do not know whether it is or no. Q. 3. 'You tell us the Moon turns always the same side to the Earth. Should it not be nearly the same' Yes. Q. 4. 'You say it does not appear that she moves round her own axis. How, then, do you account for her turning always the same side to the Earth' I think, full as well without the supposition as with it. But I do not undertake to account for anything. Q. 5. 'Why do you say the Moon is supposed to be forty-five times smaller than the Earth when the Moon's bulk is nicely known' It is not known by me, nor, I doubt, by any man else. Q. 6. 'You say Jupiter is supposed to be twenty-five times larger than the Earth, and in the next page that his diameter is supposed to be 130,655 miles. If so, is he not 4,096 times larger than the Earth' Undoubtedly. But I do not undertake to defend either one supposition or the other. Q. 7. 'You inform us that even a good eye seldom sees more than an hundred stars at a time. Do you mean at one look' Yes.

(1) 'The Earth is spherical, opaque, enlightened by the Sun, casting a shadow opposite thereto, and revolving round it in a time exactly proportioned to its distance. The other planets resemble the Earth in all these particulars. Therefore they likewise are inhabited.' I cannot allow the consequence. (2) 'The Earth has a regular succession of day and night, summer and winter. So probably have all the planets. Therefore they are inhabited.' I am not sure of the antecedent. But, however that be, I deny the consequence. (3) 'Jupiter and Saturn are much bigger than the Earth.' Does this prove that they are inhabited (4) 'The Earth has a moon, Jupiter has four, Saturn five, each of these larger than ours. They eclipse their respective planets, and are eclipsed by them.' All this does not prove that they are inhabited. (5) 'Saturn's ring reflects the light of the Sun upon him.' I am not sure of that. And, till the fact is ascertained, no certain inference can be drawn from it. (6) 'But is it probable God should have created planets like our own and furnished them with such amazing apparatus, and yet have placed no inhabitants therein' Of their apparatus I know nothing. However, if all you assert be the probability of their being inhabited, I contend not. (7) 'They who affirm that God created those bodies, the fixed stars, only to give us a small, dim light, must have a very mean opinion of the divine wisdom.' I do not affirm this; neither can I tell for what other end He created them: He that created them knows. But I have so high an opinion of the divine wisdom that I believe no child of man can fathom it. It is our wisdom to be very wary how we pronounce concerning things which we have not seen. Remark 3. 'Suppose some intelligent beings in one of the planets, who were Slaves to no sect, who sought no private road, But looked through nature up to nature's God, [Pope's Essay on Man, iv. 331-2.] viewed the Earth from thence; they would argue it must be inhabited, as we argue the other planets are. But the superstitious would oppose this doctrine, and call it mere uncertain conjecture.'

Some time after, Mr. Maxfield, or his friends, sent for him from Amsterdam, to ordain Mr. S--t and three other persons, as unlearned as any of the Apostles, but I believe not so much inspired. In December last he was sent for again, and ordained six other persons, members of our Society, but every way, I think, unqualified for that office. These I judged it my duty to disclaim (to waive all other considerations) for a fault which I know not who can excuse, buying an ordination in an unknown tongue. As to the other tale, 'The Bishop told me himself' (I pray in what tongue for he speaks no English, and you no Greek, any more than your interpreter so called) 'that Mr. Wesley desired Mr. Jones to know of him if he would consecrate him bishop' Mr. Jones solemnly declares that he never told the Bishop any such thing. But, be that as it may, the point does not turn on the validity of ordination by a Greek bishop, but on the validity of ordination procured by money and performed in an unknown tongue. My advice to you is either be silent or procure a better defender of your cause. To Six Preachers [3] NORWICH, February 27, 1765. Mr. Madan, Mr. Romaine, and the good-natured Mr. Shirley are almost out of patience with me for not disowning you on the house-top. In this situation of things it would be utter madness in me to do anything which they would call contumacy. I am every way bound to my good behaviour, and obliged to move with all possible circumspection. Were I to allow your preaching now, I should be in a hotter fire than ever. That you will preach again by-and-by I doubt not; but it is certain the time is not come yet. To Thomas Rankin [4] LONDON, March 9, 1765. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Nothing can hurt you, if you are calm, mild, and gentle to all men, especially to the froward. I think you have done all you could do at present for poor brother Jane. [See letter of Feb. 9.] I will send to William Atkinson [See letter of Jan. 7, 1756.] and ask him how the house is settled. I know nothing about it; for I never saw the writings.

How far do you find power over your thoughts Does not your imagination sometimes wander Do those imaginations continue for any time or have you power to check them immediately Do you find continually the spirit of prayer and are you always happy I trust you will be happier every day; and that you will not forget, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. Miss Dale, At the Orphan House, In Newcastle-upon-Tyne. By Portpatrick. Pd. two pence. To the Leaders and Stewards LIMERICK, June 9, 1765. MY DEAR BRETHREN,--Yours of March evening, 28th, I received yesterday. I shall have little time to spare this autumn; yet I will endeavour (with God's leave) to spend a few days in Cornwall. I hope to be at Tiverton on Tuesday, September 3; on Wednesday, 4th, at Bideford; on Thursday evening, 5th, at Millhouse; on Friday at Port Isaac; on Saturday the 7th at St. Cuthbert's; on Sunday morning and afternoon at St. Agnes; on Monday, 9th, St. Just; Tuesday, 10th, St. Ives; Friday, 13th, St. Just; Saturday, 21st, Bristol. [The Journal, v. 141-8, shows how closely he kept to his plan.] Let Mr. Rankin fix the time and place of the Quarterly Meetings. Peace be multiplied upon you.--I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin [11] LIMERICK, June 9, 1765. DEAR TOMMY,--You see my plan on the other side. [The previous letter.] Tell me of any alteration or addition which you think proper, and fix your Quarterly Meetings as you please, only let full notice be given. Brother Roberts [See letter of Sept. 3, 1763.] has reunited them at the Dock; and I have a mild, loving letter from Brother Jones. [See letter of Jan. 13.] Nevertheless it is a doubt whether I ought to go to the Dock at all before the house is settled. 'Tis pity, if a ready passage should offer, but one could exchange with Geo. Story. You know the man. If it cannot be, we must be content. Peace be with your spirit.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Peggy Dale KILKENNY, July 5, 1765.

MY DEAR SISTER,--Although it is certain the kind of wandering thoughts which you mention are consistent with pure love, yet it is highly desirable to be delivered from them, because (as you observe) they hinder profitable thoughts. And why should not you be delivered Indeed, in what manner this will be done we do not know. Sometimes it pleases our Lord to work a great deliverance even of this kind in a moment. Sometimes He gives the victory by degrees. And I believe this is more common. Expect this and every good gift from Him. How wise and gracious are all His ways! Do you commonly find in yourself the witness that you are saved from sin And is it usually clear Or do you frequently lose it I do not know why you should ever lose any good gift. For is not He the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever And yet you have known but a little of Him. You are to sink a thousand times deeper into Him: That sea of light and love unknown, Without a bottom or a shore. I hope Miss Lewen and you speak to each other, not only without disguise, but without reserve. How is your lot cast in a fair ground! How well are you situated for making the best of a short life! Secluded from the world and all its care, Hast thou to joy or grieve, to hope or fear That is, with regard to present things No: God has given you a nobler portion. You have nothing to care for but how you may most entirely and effectually present yourself a living sacrifice to God. When I reflect upon your earnest desire to do this and upon your simplicity of heart, it gives an unspeakable pleasure to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. I expect to be at Dublin till the end of this month. I send Miss Lewen's letter by Portpatrick to try which comes soonest. [The letter to Miss Lewen is missing.] To Miss Peggy Dale, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To Lady Maxwell KILKENNY, July 5, 1765.

On the former head you say: 'Our Church has long been infested with these grievous wolves, who, though no more than two when they entered in, and they so young they might rather be called wolflings' (that is lively and pretty!), 'have yet spread their ravenous kind through every part of this kingdom. Where, what havoc they have made, how many of the sheep they have torn, I need not say.' (Pages 4-5.) 'About twenty-five years ago these two bold though beardless divines' (pity, sir, that you had not taught me twenty-five years ago sapientem pascere barbam, [Horace's Satires, II. iii. 35: 'What time, by his instructions cheered. He bade me train his sapient beard.'] and thereby to avoid some part of your displeasure), 'being lifted up with spiritual pride, were presumptuous enough to become founders of the sect called Methodists' (page 6). 'A couple of young, raw, aspiring twigs of the ministry dreamed of a special and supernatural call to this' (page 25). No, sir; it was you dreamed of this, not we. We dreamed of nothing twenty-five years ago but instructing our pupils in religion and learning and a few prisoners in the common principles of Christianity. You go on: 'They were ambitious of being accounted missionaries, immediately delegated by Heaven to correct the errors of bishops and archbishops and reform their abuses, to instruct the clergy in the true nature of Christianity, and to caution the laity not to venture their souls in any such unhallowed hands as refused to be initiated in all the mysteries of Methodism' (pages 20-1). Well asserted indeed; but where is the proof of any one of these propositions I must insist upon this--clear, cogent proof; else they must be set down for so many glaring falsehoods.

4. 'The Church of Rome (to which on so many accounts they were much obliged, and as gratefully returned the obligation) taught them to set up for infallible interpreters of Scripture' (page 54). Pray on what accounts are we 'obliged to the Church of Rome' and how have we 'returned the obligation' I beg you would please (1) to explain this; and (2) to prove that we ever yet (whoever taught us) 'set up for infallible interpreters of Scripture.' So far from it, that we have over and over declared, in print as well as in public preaching, 'We are no more to expect any living man to be infallible than to be omniscient.'[Works, vi. 4.] 5. 'As to other extraordinary gifts, influences, and operations of the Holy Ghost, no man who has but once dipped into their Journals and other ostentatious trash of the same kind can doubt their looking upon themselves as not coming one whit behind the greatest of the Apostles' (page 21). I acquit you, sir, of ever having 'once dipped into that ostentatious trash.' I do not accuse you of having read so much as the titles of my Journals. I say my Journals; for (as little as you seem to know it) my brother has published none. [Extracts were published in 1793 in Whitehead's Life of John and Charles Wesley, and in Jackson's Charles Wesley in 1841. The Journal itself did not appear till 1849.] I therefore look upon this as simple ignorance. You talk thus because you know no better. You do not know that in these very Journals I utterly disclaim the 'extraordinary gifts of the Spirit,' and all other 'influences and operations of the Holy Ghost' than those that are common to all real Christians. And yet I will not say this ignorance is blameless. For ought you not to have known better Ought you not to have taken the pains of procuring better information when it might so easily have been had Ought you to have publicly advanced so heavy charges as these without knowing whether they were true or no

14. Nearly allied to this is the threadbare charge of enthusiasm, with which you frequently and largely compliment us. But as this also is asserted only, and not proved, it falls to the ground of itself. Meantime your asserting it is a plain proof that you know nothing of the men you talk of. Because you know them not, you so boldly say, 'One advantage we have over them, and that is reason.' Nay, that is the very question. I appeal to all mankind whether you have it or no. However, you are sure we have it not, and are never likely to have. For 'reason,' you say, 'cannot do much with an enthusiast, whose first principle is to have nothing to do with reason, but resolve all his religious opinions and notions into immediate inspiration.' Then, by your own account, I am no enthusiast; for I resolve none of my notions into immediate inspiration. I have something to do with reason; perhaps as much as many of those who make no account of my labours. And I am ready to give up every opinion which I cannot by calm, clear reason defend. Whenever, therefore, you will try what you can do by argument, which you have not done yet, I wait your leisure, and will follow you step by step which way soever you lead.

I am almost ashamed (having done it twenty times before) to answer this stale calumny again. But the bold, frontless manner wherein you advance it obliges me so to do. Know then, sir, that you have no authority, either from Scripture or reason, to judge of other men by yourself. If your own conscience convicts you of loving money, of 'casting a sheep's eye at the unrighteous mammon,' humble yourself before God, if haply the thoughts and desires of your heart may be forgiven you. But, blessed be God, my conscience is clear. My heart does not condemn me in this matter. I know, and God knoweth, that I have no desire to load myself with thick clay; that I love money no more than I love the mire in the streets; that I seek it not. And I have it not, any more than suffices for food and raiment, for the plain conveniences of life. I pay no court to it at all, or to those that have it, either with cunning or without. For myself, for my own use, I raise no contributions, either great or small. The weekly contributions of our community (which are freely given, not squeezed out of any) as well as the gifts and offerings at the Lord's Table never come into my hands. I have no concern with them, not so much as the beholding them with my eyes. They are received every week by the stewards of the Society, men of well-known character in the world; and by them constantly distributed within the week to those whom they know to be in real necessity. As to the 'very large oblations wherewith I am favoured by persons of better figure and fortune,' I know nothing of them. Be so kind as to refresh my memory by mentioning a few of their names. I have the happiness of knowing some of great figure and fortune, some right honourable persons. But if I were to say that all of them together had given me seven pounds in seven years I should say more than I could make good. And yet I doubt not but they would freely give me anything I wanted; but, by the blessing of God, I want nothing that they can give. I want only more of the spirit of love and power and of an healthful mind.

I want only more of the spirit of love and power and of an healthful mind. As to those 'many believing wives who practice pious frauds on their unbelieving husbands,' I know them not--no, not one of that kind; therefore I doubt the fact. If you know any such, be pleased to give us their names and places of abode. Otherwise you must bear the blame of being the lover if not the maker of a lie. Perhaps you will say, 'Why, a great man said the same thing but a few years ago.' What if he did Let the frog swell as long as he can, he will not equal the ox. He might say many things, all circumstances considered, which will not come well from you, as you have neither his wit, nor sense, nor learning nor age, nor dignity. Tibi parvula res est: Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est. [Horace's Epistles, 1. vii. 98. Wesley here gives a free and edged translation: 'You are not upon a level with Bishop Warburton. Let every man know his own size.' See next letter.] If you fall upon people that meddle not with you, without either fear or wit, you may possibly find they have a little more to say for themselves than you was aware of. I 'follow peace with all men'; but if a man set upon me without either rhyme or reason, I think it my duty to defend myself so far as truth and justice permit. Yet still I am (if a poor enthusiast may not be so bold as to style himself your brother), reverend sir, Your servant for Christ's sake. [5] November 26, 1762.

MY LORD,--Your Lordship well observes, 'To employ buffoonery in the service of religion is to violate the majesty of truth and to deprive it of a fair hearing. To examine, men must be serious.' (Preface, p. 11.) I will endeavour to be so in all the following pages; and the rather, not only because I am writing to a person who is so far and in so many respects my superior, but also because of the importance of the subject: for is the question only, What I am a madman or a man in his senses a knave or an honest man No; this is only brought in by way of illustration. The question is of the office and operation of the Holy Spirit; with which the doctrine of the New Birth, and indeed the whole of real religion, is connected. On a subject of so deep concern I desire to be serious as death. But, at the same time, your Lordship will permit me to use great plainness. And this I am the more emboldened to do because, by naming my name, your Lordship, as it were, condescends to meet me on even ground. I shall consider first what your Lordship advances concerning me, and then what is advanced concerning the operations of the Holy Spirit. 1. First. Concerning me. It is true I am here dealing in crambe repetita, [Juvenal's Satires, vii. 154: 'Twice-cooked cabbage.'] reciting objections which have been urged and answered an hundred times. But as your Lordship is pleased to repeat them again, I am obliged to repeat the answers. Your Lordship begins: 'If the false prophet pretend to some extraordinary measure of the Spirit, we are directed to try that spirit by James iii. 17' (page 117). I answer: (1) (as I have done many times before) I do not pretend to any extraordinary measure of the Spirit. I pretend to no other measure of it than may be claimed by every Christian minister. (2) Where are we directed to 'try prophets' by this text How does it appear that it was given for any such purpose It is certain we may try Christians hereby whether they are real or pretended ones; but I know not that either St. James or any other inspired writer gives us the least hint of trying prophets thereby.

But what does all this prove Not that I claim any gift above other men, but only that I believe God now hears and answers prayer even beyond the ordinary course of nature; otherwise the clerk was in the right who, in order to prevent the fanaticism of his rector, told him, 'Sir, you should not pray for fair weather yet; for the moon does not change till Saturday.' While the two accounts (pages 143, 146) which are next recited lay before me, a venerable old clergyman calling upon me, I asked him, 'Sir, would you advise me to publish these strange relations or not' He answered, 'Are you sure of the facts' I replied, 'As sure as that I am alive.' 'Then,' said he, 'publish them in God's name, and be not careful about the event.' The short of the case is this. Two young women were tormented of the devil in an uncommon manner. Several serious persons desired my brother and me to pray with them. We with many others did; and they were delivered. But where meantime were 'the exorcisms in form, according to the Roman fashion' I never used them; I never saw them; I know nothing about them. 'Such were the blessings which Mr. Wesley distributed among his friends. For his enemies he had in store the judgements of Heaven.' (Page 144.) Did I then ever distribute or profess to distribute these Do I claim any such power This is the present question. Let us calmly consider the eight quotations brought to prove it.

'To know the true character of Methodism.' The present point is to know the true character of John Wesley. Now, in order to know this we need not inquire what others were before he was born. All, therefore, that follows of old Precisians, Puritans, and Independents may stand just as it is. (Pages 184-6.) But 'Mr. Wesley wanted to be persecuted' (page 187). As this is averred over and over, I will explain myself upon it once for all. I never desired or wanted to be persecuted. Lives there who loves his pain I love and desire to 'live peaceably with all men.' 'But persecution would not come at his call.' However, it came uncalled; and more than once or twice it was not 'mock persecution.' It was not only the huzzas of the mob: showers of stones are something more than huzzas. And whosoever saw the mob either at Walsall or Cork (to instance in no more) saw that they were not 'in jest,' but in great earnest, eagerly athirst, not for sport, as you suppose, but for blood. But though I do not desire persecution, I expect it. I must, if I believe St. Paul: 'All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution' (2 Tim. iii. 12); either sooner or later, more or less, according to the wise providence of God. But I believe 'all these things work together for good to them that love God.' And from a conviction of this they may even rejoice when they are 'persecuted for righteousness' sake.' Yet, as I seldom 'complain of ill treatment,' so I am never 'dissatisfied with good ' (page 188). But I often wonder at it; and I once expressed my wonder nearly in the words of the old Athenian--'What have we done that the world should be so civil to us' [See letter of July 18, 1747.] You conclude the head: 'As he who persecutes is but the tool of him that invites persecution' (I know not who does), 'the crime finally comes home to him who set the rioter at work' (page 191). And is this all the proof that I am not peaceable Then let all men judge if the charge is made good.

I neither affirm nor deny it. (6) The true account of Lucy Godshall is this: 'I buried the body of Lucy Godshall, After pressing toward the mark for more than two years, since she had known the pardoning love of God, she was for some time weary and faint in her mind, till I put her out of the bands. God blessed this greatly to her soul, so that in a short time she was admitted again. Soon after, being at home, she felt the love of God in an unusual manner poured into her heart. She fell down upon her knees and delivered up her soul and body into the hands of God. In the instant the use of all her limbs was taken away and she was in a burning fever. For three days she mightily praised God and rejoiced in Him all the day long. She then cried out, "Now Satan hath desired to have me that he may sift me as wheat." Immediately darkness and heaviness fell upon her, which continued till Saturday, the 4th instant. On Sunday the light shone again upon her heart. About ten in the evening one said to her, "Jesus is ready to receive your soul." She said, "Amen! Amen!" closed her eyes, and died.' (Journal, iii. 44-5.) Is this brought as a proof of my inexorableness or of my dooming men to perdition (7) 'I found Nicholas Palmer in great weakness of body and heaviness of spirit. We wrestled with God in his behalf; and our labour was not in vain. His soul was comforted, and a few hours after he quietly fell asleep.' A strange proof this likewise, either of inexorableness or of 'dooming men to perdition.' Therefore this charge too stands totally unsupported. Here is no proof of my unmercifulness yet.

'His followers are directed by inward feelings, the impulses of an inflamed fancy' (no more than they are directed by the Alcoran); 'his opposers by the Scripture.' What, while they are cursing, swearing, blaspheming, beating and maiming men that have done them no wrong, and treating women in a manner too shocking to be repeated (2) The next proof is very extraordinary. My words are, 'I was with two persons, who, I doubt, are properly enthusiasts: for, first, they think to attain the end without the means, which is enthusiasm properly so called. Again, they think themselves inspired of God, and are not. But false imaginary inspiration is enthusiasm. That theirs is only imaginary inspiration appears hence--it contradicts the law and the testimony.' (Page 221.) Now, by what art of man can this be made a proof of my partiality Why, thus: 'These are wise words. But what do they amount to Only to this--that these two persons would not take out their patents of inspiration from his office.' But what proof is there of this round assertion Truly, none at all. Full as extraordinary is the third proof of my partiality. 'Miss Gr-- [Probably Miss Gregory. See Journal, ii. 430d, iii. 46-7.] told Mrs. Sparrow Mr. Wesley was a Papist. Upon this Miss Gr--is anathematized. And we are told that in consequence she had lately been raving mad, and as such was tied down in her bed. Yet all these circumstances of madness have befallen his favourite saints, whom he has vindicated from the opprobrium.' (Page 222.)

The passage in my Journal stands thus: 'Mrs. Sparrow told me two or three nights since, "Miss Gr-- met me and said, I assure you Mr. Wesley is a Papist." Perhaps I need observe no more upon this than that Miss Gr-- had lately been raving mad in consequence of a fever (not of an anathema, which never had any being); that as such she was tied down in her bed; and as soon as she was suffered to go abroad went to Mr. Whitefield to inquire of him whether she was not a Papist. But he quickly perceived she was only a lunatic, the nature of her disorder soon betraying itself.' Certainly, then, my allowing her to be mad is no proof of my partiality. I will allow every one to be so who is attended with 'all these circumstances of madness.' (4) 'He pronounces sentence of enthusiasm upon another, and tells us wherefore without any disguise: "Here I took leave of a poor, mad, original enthusiast, who had been scattering lies in every quarter."' [See Journal, iii. 181-2. The asylum in Box (Wilts.) adjoined the churchyard. The parson's fee for the burial of a lunatic was one penny; three pence for a sane person.] It was the famous John Adams, since confined at Box, whose capital lie (the source of the rest) was that he was a prophet greater than Moses or any of the Apostles. And is the pronouncing him a madman a proof of my partiality (5) 'I had much conversation with Mr. Simpson, an original enthusiast I desired him in the evening to give an exhortation. He did so, and spoke many good things in a manner peculiar to himself'--without order or connexion, head or tail, and in a language very near as Mystical as that of Jacob Behmen. 'When he had done, I summed up what he had said, methodizing and explaining it. Oh what pity it is this well-meaning man should ever speak without an interpreter!' (Page 223.)

But how is this to prove prevarication 'Why, on a sudden he directly revokes all he had advanced. He says: "I told them they were not to judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by common report, or by their own inward feelings--no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revelations supposed to be made to the soul, any more than by their tears or any involuntary effects wrought upon their bodies. I warned them that all these things were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature; they might be from God or they might not, and were therefore not simply to be relied on any more than simply to be condemned, but to be tried by a farther rule, to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony." Now, is not this a formal recantation of what he had said just above' (Page 235.) Nothing less, as I will show in two minutes to every calm, impartial man. What I say now I have said any time this thirty years; I have never varied therefrom for an hour: 'Everything disputable is to be brought to the only certain test, "the law and the testimony."' 'But did not you talk just now of visions and dreams' Yes; but not as of a test of anything: only as a channel through which God is sometimes pleased to convey 'love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance,' the indisputable fruit of His Spirit; and these, we may observe, wherever they exist, must be inwardly felt. Now, where is the prevarication where the formal recantation They are vanished into air.

But here is more proof: 'At length he gives up all these divine agitations to the devil. "I inquired," says he, "into the case of those who had lately cried out aloud during the preaching. I found this had come upon every one of them in a moment, without any previous notice. In that moment they dropped down, lost all their strength, and were seized with violent pain. Some said they felt as if a sword were running through them; others as if their whole body was tearing in pieces. These symptoms I can no more impute to any natural cause than to the Spirit of God. I make no doubt but it was Satan tearing them as they were coming to Christ."' (Page 236.) 'Now, these were the very symptoms which he had before ascribed to the Spirit of God' (page 237). Never in my life. Indeed, some of them I never met with before. Those outward symptoms which I had met with before, bodily agitations in particular, I did not ascribe to the Spirit of God, but to the natural union of the soul and body. And those symptoms which I now ascribe to the devil I never ascribed to any other cause. The second proof of my prevarication or hypocrisy is therefore just as conclusive as the first. 3. Now for the third: 'Mr. Wesley before spoke contemptuously of orthodoxy to take in the sectaries. But when he would take off Churchmen, then orthodoxy is the unum necessarium.' Did I ever say so No more than, in the other extreme, speak contemptuously of it. 'Yes, you say, "I described the plain, old religion of the Church of England, which is now almost everywhere spoken against under the new name of Methodism."' Very well; and what shadow of prevarication is here May I not still declare the plain, old religion of the Church of England, and yet very consistently aver that right opinion is a very slender part of it 4. The next passage, I am sorry to say, is neither related with seriousness nor truth: 'We have seen him inviting persecution.' Never; though I 'rejoiced,' in the instance alleged, at having an opportunity of calling a multitude of the most abandoned sinners to repentance.

'Friday, December 2. I proposed to set out for Carolina about noon. But about ten the Magistrates sent for me, and told me I must not go out of the province; for I had not answered the allegations laid against me. I replied, "I have appeared at six or seven courts in order to answer them. But I was not suffered so to do." After a few more words, I said, "You use me very ill; and so you do the Trustees. You know your business, and I know mine." 'In the afternoon they published an order forbidding any to assist me in going out of the province. But I knew I had no more business there. So as soon as Evening Prayer was over, the tide then serving, I took boat at the Bluff for Carolina.' This is the plain account of the matter. I need only add a remark or two on the pleasantry of my censurer. 'He had recourse as usual to his revelations: "I consulted my friends whether God did not call me to England"' (page 242). Not by revelations-- these were out of the question; but by clear, strong reasons. 'The Magistrate soon quickened his pace by declaring him an enemy to the public peace.' No; that senseless assertion of Mr. Causton made me go neither sooner nor later. 'The reader has seen him long languish for persecution.' What, before November 1737 I never languished for it either before or since. But I submit to what pleases God. 'To hide his poltroonery in a bravado, he gave public notice of his apostolical intention' (page 243). Kind and civil! I may be excused from taking notice of what follows. It is equally serious and genteel. 'Had his longings for persecution been without hypocrisy.' The same mistake throughout. I never longed or professed to long for it at all. But if I had professed it ever since I returned from Georgia, what was done before I returned could not prove that profession to be hypocrisy. So all this ribaldry serves no end; only to throw much dirt, if haply some may stick.

'The third part of this office is to lead, direct, and govern us in our actions and conversations. "If we live in the Spirit," quickened by His renovation, we must also "walk in the Spirit," following His direction, led by His manuduction. We are also animated and acted by the Spirit of God, who giveth "both to will and to do." 'And "as many as are thus led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God" (Rom. viii. 14). Moreover, that this direction may prove more effectual, we are guided in our prayers by the same Spirit, according to the promise, "I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication" (Zech. xii. 10). Whereas, then, "this is the confidence we have in Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He heareth us"; and whereas "we know not what we should pray for as we ought, the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom. viii. 26). "And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God" (verse 27). From which intercession (made for all true Christians) He hath the name of the Paraclete given Him by Christ, who said, "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete" (John xiv. 16, 26). For "if any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," saith St. John. "Who maketh intercession for us," saith St. Paul (Rom. viii. 34). And we have "another Paraclete," saith our Saviour (John xiv. 16), "which also maketh intercession for us," saith St. Paul (Rom. viii. 27). A Paraclete, then, in the notion of the Scriptures, is an Intercessor.

'It is also the office of the Holy Ghost to assure us of the adoption of sons, to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God towards us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inheritance. "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And, because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father; the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." As, therefore, we are born again by the Spirit, and receive from Him our regeneration, so we are also by the same Spirit assured of our adoption. Because, being "sons, we are also heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ," by the same Spirit we have the pledge, or rather the earnest, of our inheritance. "For He which establisheth us in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of His Spirit in our hearts; so that we are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance." The Spirit of God, as given unto us in this life, is to be looked upon as an earnest, being part of that reward which is promised, and, upon performance of the covenant which God hath made with us, certainly to be received.' [Works, viii. 99-101; Pearson's An Exposition of the Creed, art. VIII. ii. on The Office of the Spirit.] It now rests with your Lordship to take your choice, either to condemn or to acquit both: either your Lordship must condemn Bishop Pearson for an enthusiast, or you must acquit me; for I have his express authority on my side concerning every text which I affirm to belong to all Christians.

MY DEAR LADY,--My belief is that a journey to England might be of great service to your health. And it is not improbable you might receive much benefit from the water of the Hot Wells near Bristol. In August I hope to be at Bristol, and again in the latter end of September. My chaise and horses are at Bristol, which you would oblige me much if you would please to use as your own (if you do not bring any with you) during your stay there; for you should if possible ride out daily. My wife, who is at Newcastle, will be exceeding glad to wait upon you there. And if you choose to rest a few days, I should be happy if you would make use of the Orphan House. You would be pleased with the Miss Dales, [See letter of Sept. 29.] and they with you; you and they have drank into one Spirit. Miss Peggy is one of the holiest young women that I have any knowledge of; indeed, I think both the sisters have no desire but to glorify God with their body and with their spirit. You will be so kind as to let me know when you expect to be at Newcastle, and possibly I may meet you there.

As you were providentially called to the place where you now are, I cannot doubt but you will be preserved. But you have need of much prayer and continual watching, or you may insensibly lose what God has given. I am jealous over you; I cannot but be interested in whatever concerns you. I know your tender spirit, your desire to please all for their good, your unwillingness to give pain. And even these amiable dispositions may prove a snare; for how easily may they be carried too far! If you find anything hurts you or draws your soul from God, I conjure you flee for your life! In that case, you must not stand upon ceremony; you must escape without delay. But I hope better things: I hope you are sent to Brisbane, [Her father Thomas Brisbane, lived at Brisbane, in the county of Ayr.] not to receive hurt, but to do good, to grow in grace, to find a deeper communion than ever with Him that gave Himself for you; and to fulfil the joy of, my dear Lady, Your most affectionate friend. To Peggy Dale [5] ATHLONE, June 18, 1767. MY DEAR PEGGY,--By conversing with you I --should be overpaid for coming two or three hundred miles round about. But how it will be I know not yet. If a ship be ready for Whitehaven, then I shall aim at Whitehaven and Newcastle; otherwise I must sail for Holyhead or Chester. I hope you now again find the inward witness that you are saved from sin. There is a danger in being content without it, into which you may easily reason yourself. You may easily bring yourself to believe that there is no need of it, especially while you are in an easy, peaceful state. But beware of this. The witness of sanctification as well as of justification is the privilege of God's children. And you may have the one always clear as well as the other if you walk humbly and closely with God. In what state do you find your mind now Full of faith and love Praying always Then I hope you always remember, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper ATHLONE, June 18, 1767.

DEAR SIR,--When I saw you here some years since, I could not but admire you, such was your simplicity and godly sincerity. You knew the poor little flock, though a proverb of reproach, were a living people of God. You knew their preachers were messengers of Christ; and you espoused their cause in the face of the sun. You returned to London. You conversed with Mr. Madan and others, most of whom owe the Methodists their own souls also. You came to Edinburgh again. But you did not know the Methodists, unless one or two honourable ones. You had no fellowship with them; you neither joined with them in public nor strengthened their hands in private. You stood aloof from them as though they would have infected you. Nay, you preached just by them at the very hour of their preaching. You lessened their congregations; you threw many of the Society into vain reasonings; you opened many mouths against them; you exceedingly grieved the spirit of the preachers and caused their hands to hang down. Was this well done Was it of a piece with your former conduct Did it do any honour to the gospel Did it do any real good Did it cherish any Christian temper in Mr. Walker or Dr. Erskine [Robert Walker, a minister of the Established Church in Edinburgh, was a friend and correspondent of Lady Glenorchy. He and Erskine preached at the opening of her chapel in Edinburgh on May 8, 1774. For Dr. John Erskine, see letter of April 24, 1765.] Was it a proof of love to me Was it a means of increasing the knowledge or love of God in your own soul Alas, my brother! I know you would do well; but surely herein you have mistaken your way. Do you say, 'Nay, but I have acted right; for the Methodist people are a fallen people and the preachers preach only dry morality. They are in grievous error, denying election, perseverance, and the righteousness of Christ. Therefore their work is at an end, and the work of God which is now wrought is wrought by the awakened clergy. If I had preached in their chapels, I should thereby have abetted all their errors.'

1768 To Samuel Levick [1] LONDON, January 2, 1768. I can stay no longer. I wrote to Mr. Hoskins, Brother Trezize, Rd. Williams, Hitchens, Mitchell, Lovelace, Burrell, Eb--, Mary and Kath. Carmarthen, Brother Thomas, Mr. Thomas, Dyer, Brother Nance, Mitchell, Sister Launder, Brother Gundry, Nichols, Jo. Vinicombe, Rich. Permewan, and Jo. Bennets. The rest to you. Push home with rich and poor. Leave no stone unturned. Lose no time. Exert yourself, trusting in God. Give my printed letters whoever you judge. Therein you see your first plan. And let that go as far as it can go. But John Fenwick writes from Newcastle: 'We are all of opinion the debt may be cleared in one year. I will give 25. Robert Davison will give 25. John Morrison 25. Miss Dales 50.' Let us undertake it in faith, and it will be done! This should be insisted on with men of substance. [See letter of Jan. 19.] I want an exact account of the debts in your circuit. Is Jos. Pasco alive Be all alive!--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Samuel Levick, At Mr. James Mitchell's, In Redruth. To the Countess of Huntingdon [2] LONDON, January 4, 1768. MY DEAR LADY,--I am obliged to your Ladyship and to Lady Buchan for such a mark of your regard as I did not at all expect. I purpose to return her Ladyship thanks by this post. That remark is very striking as well as just: If it is the Holy Spirit that bears witness, then all speaking against that witness is one species of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. And when this is done by those who peculiarly profess to honour Him, it must in a peculiar manner grieve that blessed Spirit. Yet I have been lately surprised to observe how many who affirm salvation by faith have lately run into this; running full into Mr. Sandeman's notion that faith is merely an assent to the Bible, and not only undervaluing but even ridiculing the whole experience of the children of God. But so much the more do I rejoice that your Ladyship is still preserved from that spreading contagion, and also enabled plainly and openly to avow the plain, old, simple, unfashionable gospel.

I still apprehend this to be scriptural doctrine, confirmed not by a few detached texts, but by the whole tenor of Scripture, and more particularly by the Epistle to the Romans. But if so, the contrary to it must be unsafe, for that general reason, because it is unscriptural. To which one might add this particular reason,--it naturally tends to lull mourners to sleep; to make them cry, 'Peace, peace,' to their souls, 'when there is no peace.' It directly tends to damp and still their convictions, and to encourage them to sit down contented before Christ is revealed to them and before the Spirit witnesses with their spirits that they are the children of God. But it may be asked, 'Will not this discourage mourners' Yes, it will discourage them from stopping where they are; it will discourage them from resting before they have the witness in themselves, before Christ is revealed in them. But it will encourage them to seek Him in the gospel way--to ask till they receive pardon and peace. And we are to encourage them, not by telling them that they are in the favour of God though they do not know it (such a word as this we should never utter in a congregation at the peril of our souls), but we should assure them, 'Every one that seeketh findeth, every one that asketh receiveth.' If a man does not know the pardoning love of God for himself, I would ask, How or by what means are you to know it for him Has God given you to search the heart and try the reins of your hearers Can you infallibly know the real state of that man's mind Can you be certain that no secret sin stands between God and his soul Are you sure he does not regard iniquity in his heart I am afraid you have not been sufficiently wary in this, but have given occasion to them who sought occasion. But this is not all. I doubt you did not see the hand of God in Shimei's tongue. 'Unto you it was given to suffer' a little of what you extremely wanted--obloquy and evil report. But you did not either acknowledge the gift or the Giver. You saw only Mr. T. Olivers, not God. O Jemmy, you do not know yourself.

DEAR PATTY,--You do not consider, money never stays with me: it would burn me if it did. I throw it out of my hands as soon as possible, lest it should find a way into my heart. Therefore you should have spoken to me while I was in London, and before Miss Lewen's money flew away. [Wesley had settled some disputed points with Miss Lewen's father, and received on Nov. 2, 1767, the 1,000 legacy which she left him. See Journal, v. 226-7; Stamp's Orphan House, pp. 111-112; Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 589-90.] However, I know not but I may still spare you five pounds, provided you will not say, 'I will never ask you again,' because that is more than you can tell; and you must not promise more than you can perform. I scarce know what to say with regard to the other affair. It is a delicate point. Is she sure of her temporal affairs Remember her whom Lawrence Coughlan [See letters of Aug. 27, 1768, and Feb. 25, 1785 (to John Stretton).] married and ruined. Let me not have another blot of the same kind. Let her take care to tread upon firm ground. Oh how busy are mankind! and about what trifles! Things that pass away as a dream! Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, but to love and serve God.--I am, dear Patty, Your ever affectionate. To Jane Hilton BRISTOL, October 8, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--You need never be afraid of 'wearying my patience,' unless it be by your silence. There is no danger of your writing too often or too much; whatever comes from you is welcome. I can easily believe the description you give is just; therefore there are only two particulars remaining: First, Have you both the consent of your parents Without this there is seldom a blessing. Secondly, Is he able to keep you I mean in such a manner as you have lived hitherto. Otherwise, remember I When poverty comes in at the door, love flies out at the window. Do you find as much as ever of the spirit of prayer and of continual watchfulness Are you always sensible of the presence of God in the greatest hurry of business Have you power over wandering thoughts And do you find as much union of spirit as ever with, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother.

MY DEAR JOSEPH,--You do not quite take my meaning yet. [See letter of Dec. 4.] When I recommend to any one a method or scheme of study, I do not barely consider this or that book separately but in conjunction with the rest. And what I recommend I know; I know both the style and sentiments of each author, and how he will confirm or illustrate what goes before and prepare for what comes after. Now, supposing Mr. Stonehouse, [Dr. James Stonehouse, lecturer of All Saints', Bristol. See Tyerman's Whitefield, ii. 195; and for James Rouquet, letter of March 30, 1761.] Rouquet, or any other to have ever so great learning and judgement, yet he does not enter into my plan. He does not comprehend my views nor keep his eye fixed on the same point. Therefore I must insist upon it, the interposing other books between these till you have read them through is not good husbandry. It is not making your time and pains go so far as they might go. If you want more books, let me recommend more, who best understand my own scheme. And do not ramble, however learned the persons may be that advise you so to do. This does indulge curiosity, but does not minister to real improvement, as a stricter method would do. No; you would gain more clearness and strength of judgement by reading those Latin and Greek books (compared with which most of the English are whipped syllabub) than by fourscore modern books. I have seen the proof, as none of your Bristol friends have done or can do. Therefore I advise you again, keep to your plan (though this implies continual self-denial) if you would improve your understanding to the highest degree of which it is capable.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Jane Hilton SHOREHAM, December 22, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--I do not remember that I ever found a fault in you before. But I do now. I must blame you. Why are you so short You can tell me all that is in your heart. And what should hinder you Suppose I was now sitting by you, would you need to hide anything And sometimes we can write what we cannot speak. But, either in writing or speaking, there need be no reserve between us.

When you mentioned, first your apprehension that you could manage the Kingswood School, and then your thoughts concerning Nancy Smith, [Mr. Smith was an apothecary at Bristol (Journal, iii. 254). Did Whitehead marry his daughter] it seemed to me that there might be a providential connexion between the one and the other--though not to the exclusion of James Hindmarsh: that I never thought of. Good will follow from the disagreement of Brother Proctor and Palmer. I should be apt to believe a dying woman. Be zealous! Be watchful!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Bennis [15] DUBLIN, July 24, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--If the reading over your papers has no other effect, this it certainly has--it makes me love you abundantly better than I did before: I have now a more intimate knowledge of you; I enter more into your spirit, your tempers and hopes and fears and desires, all which tends to endear you to me. It is plain one of your constant enemies, and the most dangerous of all, is evil reasoning. Accordingly the thing which you chiefly want is Christian simplicity. Brother Bourke [The Assistant at Limerick.] and you should carefully watch over each other in that respect, and let each deal faithfully with the other; let there be no reserve between you; encourage one another also to pray for and expect the continual and direct witness of the Spirit. They are by no means the best part of our preachers in any sense who doubt of this. I know but of one who had experienced the work that doubted concerning the witness-- namely, James Oddie [See letter of March 29, 1766.]; and I am afraid that for some time he has experienced neither the one nor the other. Two of your written books I send back by that lovely woman Jenny Moore [Mrs. Moore, of Augher. She received these safely after some delay. See Crookshank's Methodism in Ireland, i. 200.]; the third I must borrow a little longer. My dear friend, remember Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton [16] LEEDS, July 30, 1769.

1770 May 5. Letter from Dr. Wrangel. Aug. Doctrinal Minutes at the Bristol Conference. Sep. 30. Death of George Whitefield. Nov. 18. Wesley preaches Whitefield's funeral sermon. Jan. 17. Benson dismissed from Trevecca. Jan. 23. Mrs. Wesley leaves him. Sep. 4. Francis Asbury sails for America. Fletcher's First and Second Check to Antinomianism published. Wesley issues the first five volumes of his collected Works. To Mrs. Crosby LONDON, January 1, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--Whereunto you have attained hold fast. You never need let it go. Nothing is more certain than that God is willing to give always what He gives once. If, therefore, He now gives you power to yield Him your whole heart, you may confidently expect the continuance of that power till your spirit returns to God, provided you continue watching unto prayer, denying yourself, and taking up your cross daily. Only beware of evil reasoning! Hang upon Him that loves you as a little child; living to-day, and trusting Him for to-morrow.[See letter of Jan. 2.]--I am, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother. To a Nobleman: The Earl of Dartmouth (?) [2] [January 1], 1770. DEAR SIR,--I bless God that you are not disgusted at the great plainness with which I wrote. Indeed, I know not but it might be termed roughness; which was owing partly to the pressure of mind I then felt, and partly to my being straitened for time: otherwise I might have found softer expressions. I am thankful likewise for your openness; which obliges me to be open and unreserved, and to say all I mean, and that in the most simple manner, on each of the articles that lie before us.

I must do this even with regard to my fellow labourers, lest I should seem to mean more than I do. But I am sensible this is a tender point, and one so extremely difficult to treat upon that I should not venture to say one word did I not know to whom I speak. What I mean is this: From many little circumstances which have occurred, I have been afraid (just so far it went) that those clergymen with whom you are most acquainted were jealous of your being acquainted with me. I was the more afraid when I heard the sudden exclamation of one whom you well know, 'Good God! Mr. Wesley is always speaking well of these gentlemen, and they can never speak well of him.' But I am entirely satisfied by that full declaration which you make: 'I do not know of any impression that has been made upon me to your disadvantage.' I had once the opportunity of speaking a few minutes to you on the head of Christian Perfection; and I believe you had not much objection to anything which was then spoken. When I spoke nearly to the same effect to one of the late Bishops of London, Bishop Gibson, he said earnestly, 'Why, Mr. Wesley, if this is what you mean by perfection, who can be against it?' I believe verily there would need no more than a single hour, spent in free and open conversation, to convince you that none can rationally or scripturally say anything against the perfection I have preached for thirty years. The union which I desire among the persons I mentioned is an entire union of heart, constraining them to labour together as one man in spreading vital religion through the nation. But this I do not hope for, though I know a few who would cordially rejoice therein. The union which I proposed is of a lower kind: I proposed that they should love as brethren and behave as such. And I particularized what I think is implied in this, I imagined in so plain a manner, as was hardly possible without great skill to be either misunderstood or misrepresented. I really do not conceive what ambiguity there can be in any part of this proposal, or what objection can lie against our going thus far, whether we go farther or no.

She is there still [His wife, who was in Newcastle. See letter of Nov. 20, 1769, to Christopher Hopper.]; and likely so to be, unless I would hire her to return, which I dare not do. I will not buy a cross, though I can bear it. Many are much stirred up here and are greatly athirst for pure love. I am sure you tasted it once, though you was reasoned out of it. How soon may you find it again! Simple faith is all we want. Peace be with your spirit!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper [4] LONDON, January 16, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--There is reason to believe that this has been indeed a festival time all over the kingdom. While a Sacheverell madness has spread far and wide, God gives us the spirit of love and of a sound mind. I think verily, if we could procure those premises upon reasonable terms, together with such a servitude or security (are these synonymous terms?) as you mention, it would be a noble acquisition, and might tend much to the furtherance of the work of God in Edinburgh. If all the Assistants would exert themselves with regard to the Yearly Collection as heartily as Christopher Hopper, a great deal might be done. We must have farther proof of William.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton LEWISHAM, January 25, 1770. Nancy, Nancy! I had almost said, I wish I could be angry at you; but that would not be an easy thing. I was wondering that you never wrote. I doubt your love is grown cold. Let it not be six weeks before I hear from you again. You find I can chide if you provoke me. You surprise me with regard to the books. I have spoke to Mr. Franks twice; and twice he told me he had sent them. I doubt he sent them among the other books without directing them particularly to you. I shall see that matter set right.

Some time ago, since you went hence, I heard a circumstance which gave me a good deal of concern--namely, that the College or Academy in Georgia had swallowed up the Orphan House. Shall I give my judgement without being asked? Methinks friendship requires I should. Are there not, then, two points which come in view--a point of mercy and a point of justice? With regard to the former, may it not be inquired, Can anything on earth be a greater charity than to bring up orphans? What is a college or an academy compared to this? unless you could have such a college as perhaps is not upon earth. I know the value of learning, and am more in danger of prizing it too much than too little. But still, I cannot place the giving it to five hundred students, on a level with saving the bodies, if not the souls too, of five hundred orphans. But let us pass on from the point of mercy to that of justice. You had land given and collected money for an Orphan House; are you at liberty to apply this to any other purpose--at least, while there are any orphans in Georgia left? I just touch upon this, though it is an important point, and leave it to your own consideration whether part of it at least might not properly be applied to carry on the original design. In speaking thus freely on so tender a subject, I have given you a fresh proof of the sincerity with which I am Your ever affectionate friend and brother. To Matthew Lowes LONDON, March 2, 1770. DEAR MATTHEW,--The way you propose for clearing the circuit [Lowes was Assistant in the Dales Circuit.] is, I think, the very best which can be devised. Only let your fellow labourers second you heartily, and the thing will be done. Four or five circuits exerted themselves nobly. Had all the rest done the same our burthen would have been quite removed. Well, we will fight till we die.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Barton TEWKESBURY, March 15, 1770.

If you can guard Brother Saunderson against pride and the applause of well-meaning people, he will be a happy man and an useful labourer. I hope Brother M--- has not grown cold. Stir up the gift of God which is in you!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop LONDON, June 20, 1770. DEAR MISS BISHOP,--At present you are exactly in your place; and I trust no temptation, inward or outward, shall ever induce you to depart from the work, to which God has called you. You must expect to be pushed to both extremes by turns--self-confidence and too much diffidence. But it is certain the former is the more dangerous of the two; and you need all the power of God to save you from it. And He will save you to the uttermost, provided you still retain the sense of your poverty and helplessness. It is a good prayer, Show me, as my soul can bear, The depth of inbred sin! And just so He will deal with you; for He remembers that you are but dust. But you should not wait to be thus and thus convinced in order to be renewed in love. No: pray now for all the mind which was in Christ; and you shall have more and more conviction as it pleases Him. Mr. Spencer [See letters of Sept. 13, 1769, and Oct. 12, 1771.] and Glynne are of excellent spirits, notwithstanding their opinion. I hardly know their fellows. Love is all we want; let this fill our hearts, and it is enough. Peace be with your spirit,--I am Your affectionate brother. To George Merryweather YORK, June 24, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. Augustus Toplady I know well. But I do not fight with chimney-sweepers. He is too dirty a writer for me to meddle with. I should only foul my fingers. I read his title-page, and troubled myself no farther. I leave him to Mr. Sellon. He cannot be in better hands. [See letter of Feb. 21 to Walter Sellon.] As long as you are seeking and expecting to love God with all your heart, so long your soul will live.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Miss March DAWGREEN, July 6, 1770.

MY DEAR SISTER,--I was glad to hear from you; and especially to hear that you are still athirst for God. O beware of setting up any idol in your heart! Give all to Him; for He is worthy. You did exceeding right in going to Jane Johnson. There is no end of shyness if we stand aloof from each other. In this case we have only to overcome evil with good; and they are wisest that yield first. Promises of that kind are of no force. The sooner they are broken the better. You should take Molly Strologer in to board. Oh self-will! How few have conquered it! I believe it is a good providence for your account: she can pay but few visits. She fears God and wishes to save her soul; and the visiting those that are Otherwise-minded will not profit her: she wants nothin but Christ. Surely you may tell anything to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To George Merryweather [17] LONDON, August 7, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have the credit of stationing the preachers. But many of them go where they will go for all me. For instance, I have marked down James Oddie and John Nelson for Yarm Circuit the ensuing year. Yet I am not certain that either of them will come. They can give twenty reasons for going elsewhere. Mr. Murlin says he must be in London. 'Tis certain he has a mind to be there. Therefore so it must be: for you know a man of fortune is master of his own notions.--I am, with love to Sister Merryweather and Mr. Waldy, [See letter of Jan. 24, 1760.] Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Marston [18] LONDON, August 11, 1770.

from ten thousand snares to which a young woman of a pleasing form and behaviour and not an ill temper would naturally be exposed, and to which your own heart would surely have yielded had you not been preserved by His gracious power. He has given you resignation in pain and sickness. He has made you more than conqueror, even a gainer thereby. And have not you abundant reason to praise Him, to put your whole trust in Him, and firmly to expect all His great and precious promises? The spirit of your last letter engages me much. I dearly love seriousness and sweetness mixed together. Go on, my dear Nancy, in the same path, and you will be nearer and nearer to Your affectionate brother. To James Freeman BRISTOL, August 19, 1770. DEAR JEMMY,--It is lost labour. It will not do. It is vain for any man to attempt it, to make me think any ill of James Freeman [See letter of June 7, 1762.] or Tho. Garrett. [Thomas Garrett, a native of Holland, was one of the oldest members in Dublin. He died in 1776. See Crookshank's Methodism in Ireland, i. 123, 303.] I know them too well. I did hear reports of that kind; but I regarded them not. I would fain hope that Mr. Townsend [Rector of Pewsey. See letter of Aug. 1-3, 1767. He preached against Arminianism.] will behave better in Dublin than he did in Edinburgh. However, he will do little hurt, if you stand fast in one mind, striving together for the hope of the gospel.--I am, dear Jemmy, Your affectionate brother. Letter addressed to Mrs. Jane Freeman, Near the Linen Hall, In Lisburn, Ireland. To Mrs. Marston ST. IVES, August 26, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your last gave me a particular satisfaction, because I was jealous over you. I was afraid lest you, like some others, should have received that dangerous opinion that we must sometimes be in darkness. Wherever you are, oppose this, and encourage all who now walk in the light to expect not only the continuance but the increase of it unto the perfect day. Certain it is that, unless we grieve the Holy Spirit, He will never take away what He has given. On the contrary, He will add to it continually, till we come to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

I am glad the select society meets constantly. See that you speak freely to each other. And do not speak of your joys and comforts only; this is well-pleasing to flesh and blood: but speak also of your sorrows and weaknesses and temptations; this is well-pleasing to God, and will be a means of knitting you together by a bond that shall never be broken. I hope you lose no opportunity of speaking a word for God, either to them that know Him or them that do not. Why should you lose any time? Time is short. Work your work betimes! To-day receive more grace and use it! Peace be with your spirit!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Richard Locke BRISTOL, September 14, 1770. Milton justly supposes that if ever angelic minds reasoned on 'freewill entire, foreknowledge absolute,' they would 'find no end, in wandering mazes lost.' [Paradise Lost, ii. 560-1.] How much less can an human mind reconcile them! Men have no line to fathom such a depth. We may, however, rest in this: Yet my foreknowledge causes not their fault, Which had no less been certain unforeknown. [Ibid., iii. 118-19: 'Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault, Which had no less proved certain unforeknown.'] I believe you will find some light on the head by reading that little tract Predestination Calmly Considered. [Published by Wesley in 1752. See Works, x. 204-59.] The illustrators, Mr. Harwood, [Edward Harwood, D.D. (1729-94), Presbyterian minister at Bristol 1765. His Introduction to New Testament Studies gained him his degree in 1768.] Leibnitz, Clark, Montesquieu, and above all that wretched man Voltaire, would only unhinge and perplex your mind. Hall, Scot, Sharp, Whitby, [Daniel Whitby, D.D. (1638-1726), Prebendary of Salisbury; a voluminous theological writer.] and Fleetwood are good writers; so are Locke, Hooper, and Mosheim in their several ways, but far less useful than Baxter and Law. Dr. South, Knight, and Taylor are some of the finest writers in the English tongue--if you mean Dr. James Knight of St. Sepulchre's. But I believe the best way for you would be to read only a few select authors. Then (mixing reading with prayer) you would not only find good desires, but they would be brought to good effect.--I am Your servant for Christ's sake. To Mr. Richard Locke, At Burnham, Near Bridgewater. To Miss March BRISTOL, September 15, 1770.

I have always observed that where there is a cheerful, clean, convenient house for preaching, there will not want hearers. It would therefore be well if such an one could be built at Highbridge. What you purpose giving towards it is considerable. If Mr. Mason [John Mason, Assistant in Devonshire. He was extensively read, especially in botany, and natural history in general. He died on March 27, 1810.] judges the rest of the money could be raised in the neighbourhood, the sooner it were done the better. I wish you all happiness; and am Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson [20] BRISTOL, October 5, 1770. DEAR JOSEPH,--You need no apology for your writing; the more frequently and freely you write, the better. I cannot doubt but your neighbour means well; but he is a thorough enthusiast, and has hardly one clear conception of anything, natural or spiritual. Mr. Keard, from Aberdeen, and Mr. Wootton (our new writing-master, a man of an excellent spirit) are at Kingswood. But does Mr. J-- know the price?-- sixteen pounds a year. Does he know the rules of the school? Again: of what age are the children? I will take none that is above nine years old: now especially, because I will not have our children corrupted; nine of whom, together with our three maid servants, have just now experienced a gracious visitation, and are rejoicing in a pardoning God. [Wesley says, 'Fifteen of the boys gave me their names; being resolved, they said, to serve God.' see Journal, v. 388-92.]

1771 To Joseph Benson [1] LONDON, January 7, 1771. DEAR JOSEPH,--I am surprised at nothing. When persons are governed by passion rather than reason, we can expect little good. I cannot see that there was anything blameable in your behaviour. You could not do or say less with a clear conscience. I suppose you have: given Mr. Fletcher a plain account of what has passed; although he will hardly be able to set things right. Which way do you think to steer your course now You are welcome to stay at Kingswood till you are better provided for. I shall write for Mr. Mather [Alexander Mather, then Assistant in the Bristol Circuit. See Wesley's veterans, ii. 107.] to go into Brecknockshire. You may always be sure of any service which is in the power of, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Jos. Benson, At Mr. Churchey's, Near the Hay, Brecon. To John Fletcher [2] January 16, 1771. DEAR SIR,--Mr. Churchey enclosed this letter to me, doubting whether it was proper to send it you or no. I judged it very proper, and so send it without delay. You have need of much wisdom, courage, and patience. Write a line if you have not quite forgot Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, January 21, 1771. DEAR JOSEPH,--It was of their own mere motion that the students, when I was in Wales, desired me to come and spend a little time with them. I had no thought or desire so to do, having work enough upon my hands. When Mr. Ireland [See letters of Oct. 23 and Nov. 4, 1759.] asked me why I did not go thither in August, [He was in Bristol from Aug. 13 to 20.] I answered, 'Because my Lady had written to me to the contrary.' But I do not remember that I showed him her letter; I believe I did not. I know not why you should not keep the rest of your terms at Oxford and take a Bachelor's degree. Only if you should be pressed in spirit to give yourself up to the work of God sooner, I think you must follow your own conscience. Write quite freely to, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball [3] LONDON, January 24, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--The sure way is, By doing and bearing the will of our Lord,

By-and-by you shall have the abiding witness of His Spirit, and He will shine upon His own work; and why not now Ask, and it shall be given you. The Lord is at hand; and He cannot deny Himself. Your trials, you know, are all chosen by God. It is the cup which your Father has given you; and He does and will bless it as long as He is pleased to give it. Just when it is best He will take it away and give you outward fellowship with His children. Continue in private prayer, in spite of all coldness and wanderings, and you shall soon pray without ceasing. Your affectionate brother. That remarkable sinking of spirits did not necessarily imply any preceding unfaithfulness. It might possibly be owing to the body. At such a season you have nothing to do but simply to give yourself up into the hands of God. Tell Him, Lord, I am Thine. I will be Thine. I desire to be Thine alone for ever. Thou shalt answer for me. Keep Thou Thine own; and let me do or suffer just as seemeth Thee good.' What can hurt us if our eye be single Look forward! Holiness and heaven are before you. You have no need to determine whether your heart is or is not made new till the witness speaks within you and puts it beyond all doubt. You are led in a rough way: it is a safe one. A more smooth way would be more dangerous. Your earnestly desiring the most excellent means of grace is neither sin nor infirmity. It is right to say, My soul hath a desire and longing to enter into the courts of the house of my God.' Read the 84th Psalm, and try if your heart answers to it. At present exercise all the faith you have, and it will be increased day by day. Your affectionate brother. To Mary Stokes DUBLIN, April 4, 1771.

If you wrote more than once in three months, it would not be amiss. Few are more tenderly concerned for you than, my dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate brother. PS.--You need only direct to Dr. C-- To Miss Bishop, Near Lady Huntingdon's Chapel, In Bath. To Philothea Briggs GALWAY, May 28, 1771. MY DEAR PHILLY,--Your concern is with the present moment; your business is to live to-day. In every sense let the morrow take thought for the things of itself. It is true the full assurance of hope excludes all doubt of our final salvation; but it does not and cannot continue any longer than we walk closely with God. And it does not include any assurance of our future behaviour; neither do I know any word in all the Bible which gives us any authority to look for a testimony of this kind. But just so far you may certainly go with regard to the present moment,-- I want the witness, Lord, That all I do is right, According to Thy will and word, Well-pleasing in Thy sight. Seriously and steadily, my dear maid, aim at this, and you will not be disappointed of your hope. With regard to the impression you speak of, I am in doubt whether it be not a temptation from the enemy. It may occasion many wrong tempers; it may feed both pride and uncharitableness. And the Bible gives us no authority to think ill of any one, but from plain, undeniable, overt acts. In the Thoughts upon a Single Life [Published in 1765. See Works, xi. 456-63.] you have what has been my deliberate judgement for many years. I have not yet seen any reason to alter it, though I have heard abundance of objections. I do not know whether your particular case [See letter of May 2 to her.] be an exception to the general rule. It is true your temper is both lively and unstable, and your passions are naturally strong. But that is not much: the grace of God can totally subdue the most stubborn nature. So far, then, you may certainly go. You may now devote yourself to God soul and body in your present state, and resolve never to alter it--without strong and urgent reasons. Of the weight of those reasons likewise, not yourself but your most spiritual friends should judge. To Thomas Mason [19]

MY DEAR BROTHER,--You have saved us an hundred pounds with regard to the house at Bradford. An hundred pounds less shall serve there, which may be applied to better purposes. So you may use your free thoughts on any other head (directing to Dublin) when you please. It is certain there has been little management at the Orphan House, or you would not have been a penny in debt. However, do all you can in your own way toward discharging the General Debt. I do not know where Peggy Dale could have made a better choice [She was married March 4 to Edward Avison. See heading to letter of June 1, 1765]. Peace be with your spirits!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Barton, Hull LIVERPOOL, March 22, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad you are removed to Hull [See letter of Jan. 21.]. Probably Brother Barton and you will have an advantage with regard to business. Certainly you have the advantage of such fellow travelers in the way to heaven as you could not find at Beverley. Yet I do not doubt a few names are left there that will not easily be moved from their steadfastness. And when two or three such are gathered together, we know our Lord is in the midst of them. Now make full use of the advantages you enjoy. And expect all the residue of the promises He has given you to taste of His pure love. What remains but that you should be filled therewith--I am, with love to Brother Barton, dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Barton, In Hembrough Square, Silver Street, Hull. To George Shadford [10] [End of March] 1773. DEAR GEORGE,--The time is arrived for you to embark for America. You must go down to Bristol, where you will meet with Thomas Rankin, Captain Webb, and his wife. I let you choose, George, on the great continent of America. Publish your message in the open face of the sun, and do all the good you can.--I am, dear George, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Bennis DUBLIN, April 1, 1773.

A Christian (though perhaps he never heard the name of a Methodist) has power over all sin. Have you If not, it is certain you may; for God is no respecter of persons. Whatsoever He has given to any other He is willing to give to you also. O let your heart cry to Him, ‘ What I know not teach Thou me. Let me not die before I long to die! Give me the wisdom that sitteth by Thy throne, and reject me not from among Thy children!’ To His care I tenderly commit you; and am, my dear Miss Cummins, Yours affectionately. If you love me, hear Mr. Saunderson preach. To Ann Bolton LIVERPOOL, July 7, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--You will not be sorry to hear that God has once more brought me safe to England, and that I hope to be with you at Witney (coming from Birmingham) on Thursday, the 15th instant. Probably I shall preach abroad at half-hour after six. You know I am, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, July 17, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--By the blessing of God I reached this place an hour ago in nearly as good health as I left it. I am glad my friend [His wife] was at your house; she would receive no hurt, and possibly a little good. I think Tho. Mitchell [The three preachers at Birstall in 1772 were Thomas Taylor, Thomas Mitchell, and John Nelson. In 1773 Mitchell remained. See letter of Aug. 15, 1751, about the riotous mob at Wrangle, where he was thrown into a pond] at least may spend another year in Birstall Circuit. There did seem to be a providential call for what was done at Harrogate! I am glad you find your soul unencumbered. You are just in your place. Stand fast in glorious liberty!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Bosanquet, At Morley Common, Near Leeds. To Ann Bolton [15] LONDON, July 18, 1773.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--When Dr. Monkley attended that good man Mr. Colley [Benjamin Colley, a native of Tollerton in Yorkshire. He joined the Methodists in 1761. See letters of May 2, 1767, and Oct. 13, 1784 (to Valton)] in his consumptive disorder, he said one day, 'I can't imagine how it is none of my medicine have any effect.' After pausing he asked one standing by, ‘ Is this gentleman lately married’ On her answering, ‘ About four months since,’ he replied, ‘ Then he is a dead man.’ Finding Sam. Levick in Dublin of a consumptive habit, having been married some months, I advised him to leave his wife there and ride with me round the kingdom. But she persuaded him to remain with her; in consequence of which in a few months more she buried him [See letter of Jan. 12 to Alexander Clark]. Humanly speaking, this would be the case with you if you marred during your present state of health. I think you ought at all events to take a journey of a thousand miles first.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Valton, At Purfleet, Essex. To Mary Bishop [22] BRISTOL, September 19, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is certainly most profitable for us to have a variety of seasons. We could not bear either to be constantly in storms or constantly in a calm; but we are not certain, we cannot judge what proportion of one or the other is best for us. So it is well we are not left to our own wisdom, that we do not choose for ourselves. We should make strange work; but we know He that chooses for us orders all things well.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--All is well. Persons enough offer for the place [To take charge of Wesley’s Book-Room in London. See letters of Sept. 20 and Oct.20] who know it is easier by far than that of a merchant’s clerk. Am in no haste to change. Probably I shall do nothing more till I come to London. You was present at the Conference, and heard what was then said concerning unqualified preachers. I think Rd. Packer [Richard Packer came to London from Northamptonshire, was verted at the Foundery, and became a prosperous builder in Mile End. See Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, pp. 477-8] is as weak as most. Yet he has been often useful; and, what is stranger, in several places they are fond of him!--I am Your affectionate brother. I hope to be in town this day se'nnight. To Certain Proprietors of East India Stock [24] [End of September 1773.] TO ALL WHO HAVE HAD EAST INDIA STOCK LATELY TRANSFERRED TO THEM, IN ORDER TO QUALIFY THEM FOR VOTING AT THE ELECTION FOR DIRECTORS ON WEDNESDAY NEXT. GENTLEMEN AND LADIES,--Do you know what the oath is which you are to take before you will be admitted to vote It is as follows: ‘ I, A B, do swear that the sum of five hundred pound, or more, of the capital stock of the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies doth at this time belong to me in my own right, and not in trust for any other person or persons whatsoever. So help me God.’ Do not you hereby call upon God either to help you or to send down His curse upon you as your oath is true or false If you consider this, can you take a false oath can you call God to witness to lie Are you not doing this if the stock standing in your name is not your real and true property Have you not given a note of your hand for it, which is to be returned upon your retransferring the stock Are you either benefited or hurt by the rise or fall of the stock If not, can you say you are proprietor at all

Does it alter the case, though a third person lend you the money to pay for that stock which you are so to retransfer Still you nether gain nor lose by the rise or fall of the stock: a plain proof that you have no property therein. Weigh this in time; and do not, to oblige a friend, bring the guilt of perjury on your own soul. To James Barry [25] BRISTOL, October 1, 1773. DEAR JAMES,--Sister Haughton is an upright woman and desires to please God. I advise her rather to throw her high head into the fire than to pain one of the little ones. She will have no fewer scholars. God will make her amends. My mother never would suffer one of her children to 'go to a dancing-school.' But she had a dancing-master to come to her house who taught all of us what was sufficient in her presence. To this I have no objection. If I had convenience, I would be glad to have all our preachers taught, even by a dancing-master, to make a bow and to go in and out of a room.--I am, with love to Sister Barry, dear James, Your affectionate friend and brother To Hannah Ball LONDON, October 4, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--The being sealed by the Spirit in the full sense of the word I take to imply two things: (1) The receiving the whole image of God, the whole mind which was in Christ, as the wax receives the whole impression of the seal when it is strongly and properly applied; (2) The full assurance of hope, or a clear and permanent confidence of living with God in glory. Either of these may be given (and sometimes is, though not frequently) separate from the other. When both are joined together, then I believe they constitute the Seal of the Spirit. But even this admits of various degrees: a degree of it I trust you have. Work and pray! Do and suffer the whom will of Him that calleth you! And He will supply whatever is wanting.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, October 7, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I came hither last night. For two or three weeks I was not well, but am now recovering daily [See letter of Oct 17].

I want to hear how you go in your new way of life. Is it likely to answer your brother’s expectations with regard to temporal affairs In so short a time you cannot know much, but you may form some little conjecture. Do you give attention enough and not too much to the various businesses that lie upon you I know you will be diligent therein. But are you too diligent, so as to engage too much of your time and thoughts to entrench upon things of an higher nature To deprive yourself of sufficient time for exercises of a nobler kind If you should intermit these on account of any business whatever, I doubt you would suffer loss. There would be a danger that the tenor of your spirit should cool by imperceptible degrees, and that your mind should be too much engaged in the things of this world. For many years my mother was employed in abundance of temporal business while my father, who meddled with no temporals, had his living in his own hands. Yet she never suffered anything to break in upon her stated hours of retirement, which she sacredly observed from the age of seventeen or eighteen to seventy-two. Let my friend tread in the steps of my mother. Follow her as she followed Christ. Do not delay to write and tell me just how you are and what you do. Everything that concerns you very nearly concerns me, my dear Nancy, Your friend and brother. Any time this month direct to me at Edinburgh. To Elizabeth Ritchie [12] WHITEHAVEN, May 8, 1774.

You are living witness of two great truths: the one, that there cannot be a lasting, steady enjoyment of pure love without the direct testimony of the Spirit concerning it, without God's Spirit shining on His own work; the other, that setting perfection too high is the ready way to drive it out of the world. A third thing you may learn from your own experience is that the heart of man contains things that one would think incompatible. Such are the tempers and sensations of those especially that are renewed in love. Some of them seem to be quite inconsistent with others; so that, if we give way to reasoning on this head, if we will not believe what God has wrought till we can account for all the circumstances attending it, till we know how these things can be, we shall bewilder ourselves more and more, and Find no end, in wandering mazes lost. I believe one thing which has hurt you is that kind of silence. One use of your present journey may be this: Learn to speak for God without either fear or shame. You have need to be more simple. Look straight forward; eye one thing! Do not consider that you are a woman or a gentlewoman. Do not you bear an higher character What! know you not that your very body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you Therefore glorify God with your body and with your spirit. Give Him the praise that is due unto His name. I am glad you are going to Stroud. It is probable you will see that good young woman, A. Esther. If you do, I hope you will be enabled to encourage her, that she may hold fast the good gift of God. Her experience was exceeding clear when I talked with her last. If possible, guard her against evil reasoning, that she may never let go her simplicity. Peace be with all your spirits! To Elizabeth Ritchie [14] EDINBURGH, June 3, 1774.

It is well that Jamey Watson is come to Aberdeen. Pray tell him, if we live till another Conference, we will repay what he is now obliged to borrow for necessaries. And I trust Brother Wilkinson and he will regularly attend the northern Societies. Then they will increase (perhaps more than any others) both in number and strength.--I am Yours affectionately. To Mr. John Bredin, At Mr. W. Smith’s, Writer, in Aberdeen. To Mr. -------- BRISTOL, August, 28, 1774. DEAR BILLY,--I beg of you to go without delay to the Isle of Purbeck for a week or two. You are to go to Mr. William Ingram's at Corfe; where, if you go soon, you will meet Brother Saunderson. He writes me word that a door is opened all over the island, although there are many adversaries, but the bridle is in their mouth. Perhaps it would be best for you to go by Salisbury, and to tell John Undrell I desire he would follow you. Take particular care of the little, weak infant Societies. And see what books they want--I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Wride TAUNTON, August 29, 1774. Alas! Alas! You have now confirmed beyond all contradiction what many of our preachers, as many as have had any intercourse with you, alleged concerning you. I am persuaded, had I read your last letter (that of the 17th instant) at the Conference, condemning, with such exquisite bitterness and self-sufficiency, men so many degrees better than yourself, the whole Conference as one man would have disclaimed all connection with you. I know not what to do. You know not what spirit you are of. Therefore there is small hope of cure. I have no heart to send you anywhere. You have neither lowliness nor love. What can I say or do more To Mr. ------- TAUNTON, August 29, 1774.

Accordingly, 'The souls that animate every mortal form, whether of man, beast, bird, fish, or insect, are fallen angels in a state of punishment.' 'When God began to create the world, He fought with two giants for five thousand years. Then He commanded His first-born creature, Birmah, to create the fifteen regions of punishment and purgation. And Birmah straightway formed a leaf of Betel, and thereon floated on the abyss. Then Bistnow, His second-made creature, transformed himself into a mighty boar, and, descending into the abyss, brought up the earth on his back. Then issued from him a mighty tortoise and a mighty snake, and he put the snake erect on the back of the tortoise, and put the earth on the snakes head.' 'The world is to continue six millions of years in all, of which 359,126 are to come.' Such is the substance of the Shastah; far more wonderful than the Tales of the Fairies. This Mr. H--- gravely styles the Word of God, and seems to believe every word of it. As to the origin of it, we are told, 'Four thousand eight hundred and seventy-four years ago an angel received the laws of God, written in the language of angels, came down to Indostan, and, assuming an human form, translated them into the language of the country, calling them Chartah Bhade Shastah of Bramah--that is, the four Scriptures of divine words of the Mighty Spirit, which he promulged as the only means of salvation.' I am, secondly, to examine what is said on the antiquity of this and of the nations that hold it sacred. 'For a thousand years the Shastah remained pure; but then it was corrupted by a bad paraphrase; and still more about five hundred years after, which was 3,374 years ago.' But what proof have we of this Why, 'This account we have had from some of the Bramins and from the most learned of the Laity. And in the earliest ages the Bramins were famed for their wisdom by the concurrent testimony of all antiquity.' Pray cite a few testimonies from authors that wrote four or five thousand years ago. We know of none such. If we except the Bible, we know of no book that is three thousand years old. And we see no reason to think that letters have been in use so much as four thousand years.

If 'Zoroaster and Pythagoras did visit them about the time of Romulus’ (which I do not allow), what then Romulus did not live three thousand years ago; and Zoroaster a late author has sufficiently proved to be no other than Moses himself. The antiquity, therefore, of the Shastah is utterly uncertain, being unsupported by any clear authority. Equally doubtful is the antiquity of that empire. Nay, ' Indostan, by their own account, was peopled as early as most other parts of the known word.' But who can rely on their own accounts This authority is just none at all. But 'the first invaders of it found the inhabitants a potent, civilized, wise, and learned people: Alexander the Great found it so.' No. Arrian and Q. Curtius (the only writers who give us the particulars of that expedition) say quite the contrary. But 'the Gentoo records affirm it, which mention the invasion of a great and mighty robber.' I answer (1) How is it proved this was Alexander the Great There have been more great and mighty robbers than him. But if it was, (2) Of what antiquity was he who died little above two thousand years since (3) Of what authority are the Gentoo records As much as the visions of Mirza. But 'these doctrines were universally professed by the Gentoos, some thousand years before Christ; and the Metempsychosis was held in the most early ages by at least four-fifths of the earth; and the Gentoos were eminently distinguished in the most early times.' Roundly asserted: but that is not enough; a little proof would do well. Here it is at last. 'The Gentoos admit no proselytes to their faith or worship. This proves their great antiquity.' I know not how: the consequence halts sadly. But see another argument. 'This is also proved by the perpetuity of their doctrine through a succession of so many ages.' Right, when that succession is proved. A third proof! ' Pythagoras took his doctrines from them, which the Egyptians took from him.' I am an infidel as to both these facts till I see some proof of them. His true doctrines I believe Pythagoras learned from the Egyptians, and they from the Israelites.

MY DEAR SISTER,--If I could have seen you, though it had been only for an hour, it would have given me a very sensible satisfaction. I cannot easily express that union of spirit which I feel whenever I think of you. There is I know not what in your whole spirit and behavior which has always given me unspeakable pleasure; and when I look upon you (you know to whom the glory is due!), I am often ready to cry out, 'Thou perfect pattern of true womanhood!' But I know good is the will of the Lord; therefore I am content. If it is best, I shall see my dear friend again before I take my long journey; and if I do not see you till we meet in a better world, Surely our disembodied souls shall join, Surely my friendly shade shall mix with thine. To die is not to be lost; but our union will be more complete in the world of spirits than it can be while we dwell in tenements of clay. Certainly till persons experience something of the second awakening, till they are feelingly convinced of inbred sin so as earnestly to groan for deliverance from it, we need not speak to them of present sanctification. We should first labor to work that conviction in them. When they feel it and hunger and thirst after full salvation, then is the time to show them it is nigh at hand, it may be received just now by simple faith. I can now hardly expect (if I should live to return to England) to see you before next autumn. Let me, however, have the pleasure of hearing from you; and give a place in your memory and your prayers to, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. Direct to me at Dublin. To Miss Bolton, At Witney, Oxfordshire. To Martha Chapman WORCESTER, March 15, 1775.

Are we, then, able to conquer the Americans, suppose they are left to themselves, suppose all our neighbors should stand stock still and leave us and them to fight it out But we are not sure of this. Nor are we sure that all our neighbors will stand stock still. I doubt they have not promised it; and if they had, could we rely upon those promises Yet it is not probable they will send ships or men to America. Is there not a shorter way Do they not know where England and Ireland lie And have they not troops as well as ships in readiness All Europe is well apprised of this; only the English know nothing of the matter! What if they find means to land but ten thousand men Where are the troops in England or Ireland to oppose them Why, cutting the throats of their brethren in America! Poor England in the meantime! 'But we have our militia---our valiant, disciplined militia. These will effectually oppose them.' Give me leave, my Lord, to relate a little circumstance of which I was informed by a clergyman who knew the fact. In 1716 a large body of militia were marching towards Preston against the rebels. In a wood which they were passing by a boy happened to discharge his fowling-piece. The soldiers gave all for lost, and by common consent threw down their arms and ran for life. So much dependence is to be placed on our valorous militia!

I find a danger now of a new kind--a danger of losing my love for the Americans: I mean for their miserable leaders; for the poor sheep are 'more sinned against than sinning,' especially since the amazing informations which I have received from James Ireland. Yet it is certain the bulk of the people both in England and America mean no harm; they only follow their leaders, and do as they are bid without knowing why or wherefore. On Friday I hope to be in London and to talk with the committee about building a new Foundery. This is a lovely spot and a lovely family. 'Tis pity but you could call here. It is four miles from Marlborough, and only a mile north of the London road. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu! To his Brother Charles [22] NEWBURY, October 19, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--Last night I received a curious anecdote from Mr. Merchant, the Independent minister here. He told me, 'Mr. Evans of Bristol (the elder) informed me that he dined with you (J. W.) at a merchant's house in Bristol; that he asked you how you was affected when you read the answer to your late tract: and you answered, Not at all; for you had never read it, and never would: to which he replied, That was not fair.' Where lies the mistake The answer to my late tract is dated October 2. But I left Bristol October 1. Consequently no such conversation could exist. I fancy I have caught hold of the thread, and can unravel the whole. Last year a gentleman I did not know (who I suppose was Mr. Evans) dined with me at Mr. Wraxall’s; and probably he might speak to me (though I do not remember it) of some tract which I had then published. If so, there is only an harmless mistake of Mr. Merchant's, who misunderstood what Mr. Evans said. But this makes it still more probable that his son is the author of the letter to me. 'Tis pity! Some of our friends at Bristol should tell him that he has quite lost himself; that he has forgotten all decency and good manners, and writes like a pert, self-conceited young man. I think a man of sense that could command his temper would make him a little ashamed. Adieu! To Robert Costerdine [23] LONDON, October 20, 1775.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am sorry for poor Jer. Cocker. Twice or thrice God has lifted him out of the mire. If he fall again, I doubt he will rise no more. It is the business of Tho. Hanson to remit that money to you. I know it was allowed at the Quarterly Meeting, for I was there myself. I wonder Tommy has not sent it to John Atlay. However, you may draw upon Brother Atlay for it. Visit all the Society from house to house, and you will soon see fruit of it.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, October 20, 1775. DEAR TOMMY,--The account given in our newspapers of my death was not wholly without foundation; for I was only not dead, my pulse being quite gone and 'the wheel at the cistern without motion.' But then our Lord stepped in, and The fever owned His touch, and fled. My strength returned by swift degrees; and I am now at least as well as before my illness. In the country places I believe you will have the largest harvest, where they know little and talk little about politics. Their hearts are engaged with something better, and they let the dead bury their dead. I am glad you are going into North Carolina; and why not into South Carolina too I apprehend those provinces would bear much fruit, as most parts of them are fresh, unbroken ground: And as the people are farther removed from the din of war, they may be more susceptible of the gospel of peace.

DEAR BROTHER,--I am just returned from Bedford. I have not seen the King these dozen years. I don't know what you mean by Dr. Smyth's book. It was best to take no notice of the angry ones. At Ramsbury Park, about a mile to the left of the high road, lives James Nind, local preacher, and general steward for the circuit, on a farm of five hundred pounds a year. His wife, Sally Nind, is one of the most amiable women I know. They mightily desire that you would spend a few nights with them. I am just putting into the press 'a new edition of the Address, corrected'; in which my change is accounted for, and two of the questions fully answered To the third, ' Why did not the Parliament tax them before' Mr. Madan answers, ' Because they were wiser; they knew the mischief that would ensue.' Dr. Johnson is in France. I have not heard lately from Shoreham. If the worst comes, you must make shift at the Foundery for a week or two. I can put up another bed in that which was Jenny's room. I do not think you are wise in destroying those papers. Some of them might have been useful to many. When I was in Bristol, I ordered that Hugh Saunderson should preach on Thursday night. None but you should take his place. Joseph Pilmoor may preach on Friday or Monday. Some much like, others much dislike, H. Saunderson; but his audience generally is not small. However, I will refer him to you; but I wish you would fix Thursday. Mr. Fletcher would not be safe without you or me. I should like a conference with Mr. Madan. I have a second friendly letter from him to-day. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu! Pray give my love to T. Lewis, and tell him I thank him for his letter. If the persons now taken up are hanged, it may be the saving of the nation. To Joseph Benson [26] LONDON, October 30, 1775.

Having this occasion, I take the liberty to mention to your Lordship a thing of another nature. The nation is already involved in many troubles. And we know not how many more may follow. Are we able to extricate ourselves out of them all If we have so much wisdom and strength that we need no help from man, are we quite sure that we need no help from God I know your Lordship is not of that opinion. But if we need it, why are we ashamed to ask for it to ask for it in the manner our forefathers did, in solemn public fasting and prayer What if others fast for strife and contention! Is that any reason that we should not do it from a better motive Why may not the people of England as well as the people of Nineveh seek His help who hath all power in heaven and in earth

1776 To Richard Boardman () [1] NEAR LONDON, January 12, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear so good an account of the work of God and of my dear friends Mr. and Mrs. 'Smith. I believe I shall send you a man after your own heart, a stanch, sensible, solid man, and one that I trust is a living witness of the grand Christian doctrine. Our little books you should spread wherever you go. Reading Christians will be knowing Christians. My health (blessed be God) is perfectly restored.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To George Gidley [2] LONDON, January 18, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad to hear that you are ordered to Exeter: there seems to be a particular providence in this. We have a small Society there, which is but lately formed, and stands in need of every help; so that I doubt not your settling among them will be an advantage to them. See that you be not ashamed of a good Master nor of the least of His servants. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Gidley, Officer of Excise, In Port Isaac, Near Camelford, Cornwall. To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 25, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--The ignorance of Christians (so called) is indeed greater than can well be conceived. English Christians in general know no more of Christian salvation than Mahometans or heathens. Let us impart to them all the light we can. It will not all be lost labor. You have already seen some fruit; you will see more. In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thy hand. Mr. Valton is indeed a faithful laborer, willing to spend and be spent for his Master. In the house I know you have exercise enough. But I am afraid You are not enough in the open air. It is true you cannot be much abroad in this severe weather; but you must catch all the opportunities you can. I long for you to have more opportunities of exercising yourself in the noblest way! But good is the will of the Lord! To Him I tenderly commend you. --I am, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate. To the Printer of the 'Gazetteer'

I take no horses with me. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, January 21, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER, There is something exceedingly remarkable in the case of Mr. Dixon. To be snatched away just at the time that he was set above the world! But He with whom we have to do best understands what will be for our real advantage. Probably He saw that prosperity would hurt his soul, and so took him away from the evil to come. I should have great hope that sickness or bodily weakness would be of use to your neighbors. When we feel pain, or when death looks us in the face, what do riches avail? In such circumstances you are richer than them all. You know in whom you have believed. You know that, if all these things pass away, you have in heaven a better and a more enduring substance. You may profit much by Richard Condy. [Condy was stationed at Epworth.] He is a valuable man. I seldom converse with him but he does me good. I wish you would tell him I desire he would send me a full account of his experience. Still be ready to do and to suffer the whole will of God.--My dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper NEAR LONDON, February 1, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--James Kershaw is stark staring mad, more than ever John Reed was. [See letters of March 3, 1776 (to Mrs. Woodhouse), and Feb. 15, 1777.] He prophesies that 'all the Methodists are to go over to America in the belly of a whale.' Take this as a specimen. We shall not begin our building here before April. Probably I shall take a short journey (to Leeds or Newcastle or Dublin) once a month; but I must never be absent long at a time. [See letter of Feb. 14.] How we shall be able to raise the money I know not. But ' the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.'--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Hopper, At the Preaching-house, In Manchester. Hester Ann Roe LONDON, February 11, 1777.

I will send you the volume of poems. The more you read (only a little at a time) the more you will love reading. And to assist you in anything will always be a pleasure to, my dear Patty, Your affectionate Uncle. To Alexander Clark [17] BRISTOL, September 8, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If we live till spring, I hope to reconcile most of the contending parties. In the meantime, that something may be done at the present, I have wrote to Mr. Boardman at Cork and desired him to come to Dublin immediately. Mr. Bradburn is to supply his place at Cork. In every place the Assistant chooses the leaders. But any leader or any other person does well to appeal to me if he thinks himself hardly used. When Mr. Boardman comes, I wish you would speak to him; and whatever he determines will be agreeable to Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Alex. Clark, In Chancery Lane, Dublin. To Alexander Clark BRADFORD-[UPON-AVON], September 9, 1777. MY DEAR BRETHERN, [This letter was sent to Clark for himself and the other leaders.] --It is certain our preachers have a right to preach our doctrines, as my lady’s have to preach theirs. None can blame them for this. But I blame all even that speak the truth otherwise than in love. Keenness of spirit and tartness of language are never to be commended. It is only in meekness that we are to instruct those that oppose themselves. But we are not allowed upon any account whatever to return evil for evil or railing for railing. I have desired Mr. Boardman to be in Dublin as soon as possible. I believe you know his spirit. He is a loving, peaceable man. Meantime in your patience possess ye your souls.--I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Alex. Clark, In Chancery Lane, Dublin To Alexander Clark BRISTOL, September 11, I777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I received your last letter this afternoon, and one at the same time wherein are these words:

MY DEAR MISS BISHOP,--By long experience I am convinced that natural strength of understanding is no defense against the most absurd errors; more especially if we lean to it ever so little, if we are not deeply conscious of our own weakness. I am therefore jealous of you also: I am afraid lest you too 'fall where many mightier have been slain.' Indeed, some have not scrupled to say already, 'Oh, Miss Bishop will soon be enlightened as well as Miss Flower. [ See letters of Sept. 15 (to her) and Nov. 16.] She has such a regard for Mr. Hilton, that he will soon open her eyes.' As yet I cannot believe he will; yet I do not say there is no danger. Has he opened the cause? Has he spoke o wrote to you upon the favorite subject? Has he talked you about 'being still, ceasing from your own works, and from crying, Lo here and lo there'? If he has, what impression did that smooth and plausible conversation make upon your mind Was you almost persuaded it was right? or did you stand unmoved? If you was moved, if you too should leave 'the fallen Methodists,' and join 'the Friends, the only living people in the world '; still, I do not find myself inclined to bring am heavy indictment against you. I should not be angry; though I should grieve, for I cannot easily part with those I love. I am inclined to think your friend of Bath made a mistake with regard to the person. I did receive ' a letter which I knew-not what to make of.' But it was from Miss Flower, not Miss Bishop. I do not remember that ever I received a letter from you which I did not understand. I know few people who write or speak more intelligibly than you do; and I hope you will soon give a fresh proof of it to, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours affectionately To Miss Bishop, At Mrs. Taylor's, Above Bar, Hanover Row, Southampton. To Mrs. Barton STONY STRATFORD, October 28, 1777.

MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad that in spite of all discouragement’s your little Society still keep together. There is undoubtedly a fairer prospect now than there has been for some time. I believe good will result from Miss Hurrell's visit. [See letter of July 29 to Mrs. Barton.] She has been of use to many. And it is certain both T. Hanson [The ministers in the Hull Circuit.] and James Hudson [The ministers in the Hull Circuit.] are workmen that need not be ashamed. They are good preachers and (what is more) good men; and their heart is in the work. I wish when opportunity serves you would speak freely to them. Men of this kind are not always to be found. You have been long led in a rough and thorny way. But as your day so your strength has been. He that loves you gives you help for to-day, and you need not take thought for to-morrow. You have His love and truth and promise on your side, and He hath never failed them that seek Him. Peace be with your spirit!--I am, dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Barton, In Norwood, Beverley, Yorkshire. To the Assistant Preachers [October 1777.] MY DEAR BROTHER, About March you may begin to make the subscription for the new chapel. Till then I will beg you with all possible diligence to procure subscriptions for the Philosophy. [See letter of Feb. 15.] Spare no pains. It will be the most complete thing in its kind of any in the English tongue. But it is well if I procure as many subscribers as will pay the expense of the edition.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. ----- LONDON, November 9, 1777.

You do not at all understand my manner of life. Though I am always in haste, I am never in a hurry'; because I never undertake any more work than I can go through with perfect calmness of spirit. It is true I travel four or five thousand miles in a year. But I generally travel alone in my carriage, and consequently am as retired ten hours in a day as if I was in a wilderness. On other days I never spend less than three hours (frequently ten or twelve) in the day alone. So there are few persons in the kingdom who spend so many hours secluded from all company. Yet I find time to visit the sick and the poor; and I must do it, if I believe the Bible, if I believe these are the marks whereby the Shepherd of Israel will know and judge His sheep at the great day; therefore, when there is time and opportunity for it, who can doubt but this is matter of absolute duty? When I was at Oxford, and lived almost like an hermit, I saw not how any busy man could be saved. I scarce thought it possible for a man to retain the Christian spirit amidst the noise and bustle of the world. God taught me better by my own experience. I had ten times more business in America (that is, at intervals) than ever I had in my life. But it was no hindrance to silence of spirit.

1778 To Mrs. Johnston, Annandde, Listeen. MY DEAR SISTER, - I do not remember the receiving any letter from you, either at Dublin or since I left it. Neither have I received any fresh complaint concerning you. [See letter of Feb. 14 to her.] What I formerly heard I gave you an account of, to which you gave me a distinct answer, and I was fully satisfied. I am relieved to think someone talked of making a fresh complaint. But it is very probable his heart failed, and so the child was strangled in the birth. Indeed, I do not wonder if people are not forward to complain of you to me. Because they know I am a prejudicial person: they know the tender regard I have you and yours, and consequently how hard it is for me: to blame you in anything. That God may give you many happy is the prayer of, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Taylor [1] LONDON, January 15, 1778. DEAR TOMMY, - I am glad you have seen Mr. Pugh. The Philosophy is finished, [See letter of Feb. 15, 1777.] and will be sent down next month. I spoke briefly before; but since you urge me to it, I will now come full upon your subject. As to Preaching, you ought not to preach against that unscriptural, blasphemous, mischievous doctrine constantly - no, nor very frequently. But you ought now and then to bear a full, strong, express testimony against it; otherwise you are a sinner against God and your people and your own soul. I have done this too seldom, scarce once in fifty sermons: ought to have done it once in fifteen or ten.

To Samuel Bardsley LONDON, February 14, 1778. DEAR SAMMY, - So your mother is at rest! We shall go to her, though she will not return to us. I am glad you are so agreeably situated, and that you already see some fruit of your labor. About the 27th of March I expect to be at Chester. If a ship be ready at Parkgate, I purpose to embark directly; if not, I shall pay you a visit at Liverpool. [He sailed from Liverpool on March 31.] I fix upon nothing: let the Lord do as seemeth Him good. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Johnston, Annandale, Lisleen [2] LONDON, February 14, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - The fact was true. And there was a grievous mistake with regard to the time of it for that letter (which was wrote, I suppose, a year and a half ago); since that time I have had no complaint of the kind. [See letter of Jan. 8.] If I had, I should have let you know. But you need not be under any apprehension of my being offended at you either on this or any other account. I am not easily offended at those I love, and I have loved you ever since I saw you for your artlessness and sincerity; and I believe you will never quit that character, though it be ever so much out of fashion. I cannot doubt but Robert Swindells' stay at Lisleen was of use to others as well as himself. As Shakespear's 'the man of exceeding honesty,' one may take his word. Therefore I am strongly persuaded he is no Calvinist; yet I do not wonder that it should be imputed to him, for he was leaning toward it for many years. This all our preachers know; but they did not all know that he now sees more clearly. In about a fortnight I purpose to set out from London, and probably about the end of next month I shall be in Dublin. I intend with God's help to visit the South of Ireland first start, make Londonderry beginning of June. If so, I will have the pleasure of seeing you and your dear family before the end of May. Peace be with all your spirits,-I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Maxfield [3] February 14, 1778.

MY DEAR BETSY, - Since I saw her I have had the pleasure of receiving two letters from --; and I am more and more convinced that she has sustained no real loss from her late trials. Indeed, the greatness of them proved the greatness of her grace; otherwise she must have utterly fainted. But I am afraid the poor tenement of clay has received such a shock as will not easily be repaired. The wonderful behavior of Mrs. was more than it was well able to bear. But the comfort is, He with whom we have to do is the Physician. I doubt whether any embodied spirit can feel such entire self-abasement as is felt by those spirits that see the face of our Father which is in heaven. And undoubtedly the nearer they approach the throne the more abused they will be. The plerophory (or full assurance) of faith is such a divine testimony that we are reconciled to God as excludes all doubt and fear concerning it. This refers only to what is present. The plerophory (or full assurance) of hope is a divine testimony that we shall endure to the end; or, more directly, that we shall enjoy God in glory. This is by no means essential to or inseparable from perfect love. It is sometimes given to those that are not perfected in love, as it was to Mr. Grimshaw. And it is not given (at least not for some time) to many that are perfected in love. I do not say you ought to pray for it; but I think you may, only with absolute resignation. In this, as in all things, ' His manner and His time are best.' I rejoice to hear of the continuance of your health. [She had written, 'My own health also is better than when you were here. I have been three weeks in the North, chiefly on the edge of a cold moor, which has agreed with me very well.'] But you will still need constant exercise; to which should be added as often as may be change of air. That you may enjoy more and more health, both of soul and body, is the prayer of Yours affectionately. To Cornelius Bayley [14] NEAR LONDON, October 12, 1778. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I will read over and consider your MS. the first opportunity.

There is frequently something very mysterious in the ways of divine Providence. A little of them we may understand; but much more is beyond our comprehension, and we must be content to say, 'What Thou doest I know not now, but I shall know hereafter.' At present it is sufficient for me to know that all His ways are mercy and truth to them that love Him. Even in these troublous times there is a very considerable increase of the work of God. Cleave to Him with your whole heart, and you will have more and more' reason to praise Him.-I am, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, November, 18, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - I have no intimacy with Lord North. I never saw him. I never wrote to him; very probably I never shall. I never asked any favor of him. I would not on any consideration whatever. It is a saying, You do not know what kind of animals great men are. They will not move an hair's breadth out of their line. They will on no account interfere in each other's province. Now, I told you before, only the Commissioners at the Customs dispose of Custom House places. And I know not one of those Commissioners. Therefore I can do nothing in this matter. [Compare letter of Dec. 26.] I am not sparing of my pains; but I know what I can do and what I cannot. If I could do it, you would not need to ask anything twice of Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton's, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To Hannah Ball [ROBERTSBRIDGE], December 2, 1778.

The work of God 1orospers well in London. A new chapel brings almost a new congregation, and hereby the old is greatly stirred up. Let us all work while the day is! - I am, with love to both Brother Robinsons, [Thomas and William Robinson, of Bridlington Quay. See letter of May 22, 1770.] dear Your affectionate brother. To John Toocks NEAR LONDON, December 26, 1778. Never was there a time (at least in my remembrance) when employments of this kind were so difficult to be procured. I know several young persons who are well qualified for any such place; but they cannot get any, and are almost perishing for want. So that what I can do for you I know not. [Compare letter of Nov. 18.] - I am Yours affectionately. To Mr. John Tooelm, At Mr. Treffs, Taylor, Near the White Hart, East Street, Colchester. To Captain Richard Williams LONDON, December 30, 1778. MY DEAR BROTHER, - The January Magazine was filled up before yours came. Because I do not care to depend on myself alone, I usually submit all the verses which are sent me to the judgment of my brother and the other preachers that are with me. And whatever they agree is proper I publish as soon as convenient. It seems to me the 'Address to the Watchman' may be of general use. I believe it will be published in one of the following magazines. [The letter on Dueling appeared in March. See Arminian Mag., 1779, pp. 146-8; and letters of Sept. 13, 1774 (to him), and Feb. 25, 1783 (to Joseph Taylor).] I am Your affectionate brother. To Capthin R. Williams, Crarick, Near Redruth.

MY DEAR HETTY, - It is a great mercy that, on the one hand, you have previous warning of the trials that are at hand; and, on the other, are not careful about them, but only prep. ared to encounter them. We know, indeed, that these (as well as all things) are ordered by unerring Wisdom, and are given us exactly at the right time and in due number, weight, and measure. And they continue no longer than is best; for CHANCE has no share in the government of the world. [See letter of Aug. 12, 1731, to Mrs. Pendarves.] 'THE LORD REIGNETH,' and disposes all things strongly and sweetly for the good of them that love Him. I rejoice to hear that you have now less hindrances in the way and can oftener converse with His people. Be sure to improve every one of those precious opportunities of doing and receiving good. I am often grieved to observe that, although on His part 'the gifts and calling of God are without repentance'; although He never repents of anything He has given us, but is willing to give it always; yet so very few retain the same ardor of affection which they receive either when they are justified or when they are (more fully) sanctified. Certainly they need not lose any part of their light or love. It may increase more and more. Of this you are a witness for God; and so is our dear Miss Ritchie. [See letter of Oct. 6, 1778, where the full assurance of hope is discussed.] You have not lost anything of what you have received; your light has never grown dim nor your love grown cold since the moment God first visited you with His great salvation. And I hope also you will ever retain the same affection for Yours most tenderly. To Elizabeth Ritchie LONDON, February 12, 1779.

MY DEAR BROTHER, - It seems to me that this is a very providential thing, and that you did well not to let the opportunity slip. There is no doubt but our brethren at the Conference will readily consent to your asking the assistance of your neighbors. [That assistance was for the erection of a preaching-house. The letter was endorsed, 'Mr. Wesley's approbation of Exeter purchase.' See letter of Jan. 25.] And the time appears to be now approaching when poor Exeter will lift up its head. There is no danger at all of your being a loser by any bond or security that you have given. If I live till the latter end of summer, I hope to call upon you in my way to Cornwall. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Gidley, Officer of Excise, In Exeter. To Mrs. Hall NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 15, 1779. DEAR PATTY, - So far I am come. I have little above three hundred miles to go before I turn my face southward again. I advise you to apply to two, three, or four intelligence officers with regard to Nancy. [A seamstress at Salisbury whom Mrs. Hall's husband seduced. See letter of June 20, 1755.] It is certain there are places to be had in London. And if the worst come, we must not insist upon her coming to the chapel. I do not know that she is any better for coming. She is not likely to profit less anywhere else. She was out of her wits to come to London. Mrs. Glynne [See W.H.S. iv. 217-20.] told me when I was last at Shrewsbury that she had as much work there as ever she could do, but she never would take advice, and acted contrary to the judgment of all her friends in coming to London without why or wherefore. I wonder John Pawson [Pawson was now Assistant at City Road.] and his wife do not live in my apartments. They complained of the closeness of their own. Are they neither well full nor fasting

Why should not you write an account of your life [Hopper lost no time. His autobiography appeared in the Arminian Mag. for Jan.-March 1781. See Wesley's Veterans, i. 107-74.] Isaac Waldron, T. Lee, W. Brammah, &c. &c., were not 'strong and able men.' When any such obtrude themselves for easy circuits, speak at that time, and you do something. Mr. Hopper, At the Preaching-house, In Colne, Lancashire. To Hannah Ball DORKING, February 17, 1780. MY DEAR SISTER, - There is nothing strange in a particular union of spirit between two persons who truly fear God. [She had lost her old friend Samuel Wells. See heading to letter of Feb. 24, 1779, to her.] It is not at all uncommon: within few years I have known many instances of the kind. And I see not any reason why this union should be destroyed by death: I cannot conceive it is. I have myself, since her death, found a wonderful union of spirit with Fanny Cooper [Miss Cooper, whom Wesley went to see at Donnington Park in 1742. See letter of May 17 of that year.]; and have sometimes suddenly looked on one or the other side, not knowing whether I should not see her. So you may remember Mr. De Renty says to his friends, 'To die is not to be lost: our union with each other shall hereafter be more complete than it can be here.' And I have heard my mother say that she had many times been 'as sensible of the presence of the spirit of my grandfather as she could have been if she had seen him standing before her face.' So Mr. Hawes is gone: I hope in peace! Let us also be ready! - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Elizabeth Morgan LONDON, February 20, 1780.

DEAR SAMMY,--You stand alone. Not only all our friends in England, but all our friends in Ireland too, dissuade me from 'adventuring myself into the theatre' [Acts xix. 29.] during the present tumult. I cannot yet determine. I wait the farther call of Providence; and am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. I doubt whether you had not better be at Liverpool than Bristol, because little children cannot be in Bristol house [See letter of Feb. 26 to him.]. In Liverpool house there is room enough. To John Valton [3] PARKGATE, April 21, 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER,-I send you herewith one of our Lord's jewels, my dear Miss Ritchie; such an one as you have hardly seen before. But, alas! it seems she has but a short time to stay here, unless the journey should remove her consumption. Miss Marshall, her friend, is an Israelite indeed. You will assist them all you can; and so, I doubt not, will Sister Maddern. Indeed, they are worthy. I hope you are writing for me an extract from your Journal. [See letters of Feb. 9 and Oct. 1 to him.] I wish you would take another burthen upon you. Interleave one of the Primitive Physicks, and insert into it as many cheap and simple medicines as you pIease.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Valton, At the New Room, In Bristol. e lived and sent him to paradise before his time. I do not know that this is your case. But I tell you whatever rises in my mind. I only want you to attain ia full reward.--I /ialways am, my dear Nancy,/p p class="Section1" style=" text-autospace:none"Yours most affectionately./p div align="center" style="text-align:center; text-autospace:none" span class="MsoNormal"span style="MS Mincho""> To Mrs. Crosby [4] NEWCASTLE, May 11, 1780. MY DEAR SISTER,--Before you mentioned it, that was my purpose, not to let any one know of your writing. Therefore I do transcribe what I choose to keep and burn the originals [His wife's conduct made Wesley anxious to afford no opportunity for misunderstanding.]. Neither must the witness supersede the fruits, nor the fruits the witness of the Spirit. Let other men talk this way or that, the word of the Lord shall stand.

Give me leave, my Lord, to speak more freely still: perhaps it is the last time I shall trouble your Lordship. I know your Lordship's abilities and extensive learning; I believe, what is far more, that your Lordship fears God. I have heard that your Lordship is unfashionably diligent in examining the candidates for Holy Orders--yea, that your Lordship is generally at the pains of examining them yourself. Examining them! In what respects Why, whether they understand a little Latin and Greek and can answer a few trite questions in the science of divinity l Alas, how little does this avail! Does your Lordship examine whether they serve Christ or Belial whether they love God or the world whether they ever had any serious thoughts about heaven or hell whether they have any real desire to save their own souls or the souls of others If not, what have they to do with Holy Orders and what will become of the souls committed to their care My Lord, I do by no means despise learning; I know the value of it too well. But what is this, particularly in a Christian minister, compared to piety What is it in a man that has no religion ' As a jewel in a swine's snout.' Some time since, I recommended to your Lordship a plain man, whom I had known above twenty years as a person of deep, genuine piety and of unblameable conversation. But he neither understood Greek nor Latin; and he affirmed in so many words that he believed it was his duty to preach whether he was ordained or no. I believe so too. What became of him since, I know not; but I suppose he received Presbyterian ordination, and I cannot blame him if he did. He might think any ordination better than none. I do not know that Mr. Hoskins had any favour to ask of the Society. He asked the favour of your Lordship to ordain him that he might minister to a little flock in America. But your Lordship did not see good to ordain him; but your Lordship did see good to ordain and send into America other persons who knew something of Greek and Latin, but who knew no more of saving souls than of catching whales.

DEAR SAMMY, -- I did not doubt but you would agree with the people of Sheffield. [Rogers was Assistant at Sheffield, with Bardsley as third preacher.] They are a lively and affectionate people. I am glad you were so successful in your labor of love for them. That assistance was very seasonable. That misunderstanding, which was troublesome for a season, may now be buried for ever. I am perfectly well satisfied, both of the honesty and affection, both of Brother Woodcroft and Brother Birks. [Samuel Birks, of Thorpe. See for portrait of him, aged ninety-five, Methodist Mug. 1825, p. 718; and Everett’s Methodism in Sheffield.] So Satan’s devices are brought to naught. I doubt not but James Rogers and you recommend our books in every place, and the Magazines in particular, which will be a testimony for me when I am no more seen. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Zachariah Yewdull [1] LONDON, February 10, 1781. My DEAR BROTHER, -- Brother Johns has been with me this morning. I believe you will have peace long before he gets his estate. You have now a fair prospect. It really seems as if God had inclined the hearts of the magistrates to do you justice. I know no attorney to be depended on like Mr. Bold, of Brecon. The Conference will consider the expense. Continue instant in prayer, and God will give you quietness. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON. February 20, 1781.

MY DEAR NANCY, -- Yesterday I returned from a little tour through Norfolk, and had the pleasure of finding your letter. You know I feel with you and for you. But I am almost at a loss to understand what trials can sit so heavy upon you! You are with those whom you love and who love you. You have in general tolerable health. You have no husband, no children to perplex you. How came you to be so weighted down with care Think aloud, my dear, my much-loved friend. Explain yourself. Be as particular as you please. You need not fear my telling others. You have known me since you were little more than a child. Has Neddy [Her brother. See letters of May 8, 1774, and Sept. 9, 1781, to her.] no hope of getting out of his trouble Is his farm rented above its value Is it on his sake only that you grieve Or are other trials added to this By all means accept the providential invitation to Bristol. My dear Nancy, adieu. On Monday se’nnight I set out for Bath and Bristol. On Monday, March 8 [5], I hope to be at Newbury; on Monday, 15th, [Monday was March 19, and that evening he preached at Stroud, and on the 20th at Worcester. See next letter.] at Stroud; on Tuesday the x6th at Worcester. You will contrive to be with me where you can. I do not find any fault with you at present. Only I am afraid you are not careful enough of your health. Otherwise I rejoice that I have confidence in you in all things. -- I am, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Thomas Rutherford [2] LONDON, February 20, 1781. DEAR TOMMY, -- I am glad to hear so good an account of Mr. Abraham. [See letters of Nov. 4, 1780, and May 8, 1781.] I hope to be at Dublin in April; and if he goes on well till then, it is not improbable he and you and I may return to England together. A few days in March (till Monday the 19th) I purpose to spend in and about Bristol. I then go slowly through Gloucestershire and Staffordshire to Manchester, which I hope to reach on March the 29th.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- That should be always upon your mind, to carry the gospel into new places. There is room still for enlarging our borders, particularly in Holderness. I am in doubt whether anything will much avail Sister Harrison till she takes the quicksilver and aqua sulphurata. But John Floyd [Floyd, then preacher at Birstall. See letter of March 15, 1777.] tells me elixir of vitriol does just as well as the aqua sulphurata. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley MANCHESTER, March 31, 1781. MY DEAR SALLY, -- The expression of ‘eating and drinking unworthily’ has one, and only one, meaning affixed to it by St. Paul, who is the only inspired writer that uses that expression. He means by it that particular sin of which the Corinthians were then guilty -- the snatching one before another his own supper, so that one was hungry and another was drunken. Now, it is certain you are in no danger of this any more than of committing murder. Deadness, coldness, wandering thoughts of various kinds are totally distinct from it. And now, when the worst of these occur, you may answer with pious Kempis, ‘Go, go, thou unclean spirit. These are not my thoughts but thine, and thou shalt answer for them to God.’ [Imitation, 111. vi.] God is now aiming, in all His dealings with you, to bring you to a knowledge of yourself as one in whom by nature dwells no good thing. And this He is particularly pursuing when you approach His Table. Were He to give you at that time remarkable joy or sweetness, it would not answer His design; neither were He to give you much contrition and brokenness of heart. Therefore He leaves you in great measure to your own dull, unfeeling heart, that you may know yourself in order to know Him. But nevertheless this is the way; walk thou in it, and in due time you shall reap if you faint not.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- As I have. made a beginning, as the men and women are already separated in the chapel at Manchester, I beg that Brother Brocklehurst [See letter of Oct. 1, 1780, to Valton.] and you will resolutely continue that separation. This is a Methodist rule, not grounded on caprice, but on plain, solid reason; and it has been observed at Manchester for several years: neither upon the whole have we lost anything thereby. By admitting the contrary practice, by jumbling men and women together, you would shut me out of the house; for if I should come into a Methodist preaching when this is the case, I must immediately go out again. But I hope this will never be the case; I think you have more regard for Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Valton, at the Preaching-house, Manchester. In his absence to be given to Mr. Brocklehurst. To Hester Ann Roe LIVERPOOL, April 10, 1781. MY DEAR HETTY, -- Many of our brethren and sisters in London, during that great outpouring of the Spirit, [In 1762. See Works, xi. 406.] spoke of several new blessings which they had attained. But after all, they could find nothing higher than pure love, on which the full assurance of hope generally attends. This the inspired writings always represent as the highest point; only there are innumerable degrees of it. The plerophory (or full assurance) of faith is such a clear conviction that I am now in the favor of God as excludes all doubt and fear concerning it. The full assurance of hope is such clear confidence that I shall enjoy the glory of God as excludes all doubt and fear concerning this. And this confidence is totally different from an opinion that 'no saint shall fall from grace.' It has no relation to it. Bold, presumptuous men often substitute this base counter in the room of that precious confidence. But it is observable the opinion remains just as strong while men are sinning and serving the devil as while they are serving God. Holiness or unholiness does not affect it in the least degree. Whereas, the giving way to anything unholy, either in life or heart, clouds the full assurance of hope; which cannot subsist any longer than the heart cleaves steadfastly to God.

1781 To Thomas Rutherford LOUTH, July 4, 1781. DEAR TOMMY, -- I got half-way again, as far as the Isle of Man; but I could get no farther. What He doth we know not now, but we shall know hereafter. I wish Isabella and you much happiness, which you cannot fail of if you have much holiness. Therefore the certain way to make each other happy is to strengthen each other's hands in God. Some time since, I desired Brother Moore [Henry Moore was his colleague at Lisburn, and their wives were sisters. He had just removed from Tanderagee. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 345; and letter of Feb. 23, 1783.] to procure and send me as particular account as possible of that odd affair near Tanderagee; I mean with regard to the house which was so strangely disturbed. I wish he would do it without delay. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Hannah Ball SHEFFIELD, July 12, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER,--I cannot at all understand George Story’s [George Story was Assistant in Oxfordshire. The new preachers were Richard Rodda and Thomas Warwick. See letter of Nov. 17.] behavior. He seems prejudiced against you; and I cannot devise for what. But your business is to go straight forward. And let both Nancy and you do all the good you can. Surely you should take an opportunity to warn Jo. Accutt [John Accutt was the second preacher. He desisted from work in 1785.] of his danger. I shall appoint two new preachers for the Oxford Circuit next year. Jasper Winscom [See letter of Oct. 20, 1775, to him.] is a good man and a local preacher. But I am glad you are not minded to leave Wycombe. The longer your letters are the more welcome they are to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Loxdale NOTTINGHAM, July 14, 1781.

I must inquire of my friends what is the most practicable way of doing something for your son. [Samuel Malenoir.] If I can find any one that is acquainted with the captain of the Grafton, this will be the easiest way. But I am this evening setting out for Bristol. Peace be with your spirit! -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To his Nephew Charles Wesley BRISTOL, September 8, 1781. DEAR CHARLES, -- Your letter gave me a good deal of satisfaction. You received my advice just as I hoped you would. [See letter of Aug. 4 to him. ] You are now, as it were, on the crisis of your fate: just launching into life, and ready to fix your choice, whether you will have God or the world for your happiness. Scripture and reason tell you now, what experience will confirm, if it pleases God to prolong your life--that He made your heart for Himself, and it cannot rest till it rests in Him. You will be in danger of being diverted from this thought by' the fashion of the world. The example of those that are round about us is apt to get within our guard. And, indeed, their spirit steals upon us in an unaccountable manner and inclines us to think as they think. Yet you cannot avoid being very frequently among elegant men and women that are without God in the world. And as your business rather than your choice calls you into the fire, I trust that you will not be burnt: seeing He whom you desire to serve is able to deliver you even out of the burning fiery furnace. -- I am, dear Charles, Your very affectionate Uncle. To his Niece Sarah Wesley BRISTOL, September 8, 1781. MY DEAR SALLY, -- It is certain the Author of our nature designed that we should not destroy but regulate our desire for knowledge. What course you may take in order to this I will now briefly point out. [See letter in June 1764 to Margaret Lewen.] 1. You want to know God, in order to enjoy Him in time and eternity. 2. All you want to know of Him is contained in one book, the Bible. And all you learn is to be referred to this, either directly or remotely.

MY DEAR NANCY, -- One thing we are absolutely assured of -- that good is the will of the Lord! But I should be glad to know, How do Neddy’s [See letters of Feb. 20, 1781, and Aug. 3, 1782, to her.] affairs stand now Has he any prospects of getting out of his troubles Is there a probability that he will be able to extricate himself from the present difficulties How far are you concerned therein Are you perplexed on any other account Where do you spend your time, and how are you employed When you have any leisure, certainly you cannot bestow it better than in visiting as many as you can of your poor neighbors. How is your health now I should be afraid these pressures upon your mind would increase your bodily disorders. I do not believe you murmur or fret at anything. But you cannot avoid grieving (unless when the power of the Highest overshadows you in an extraordinary manner). And even this will shake the tenement of clay. My dear Nancy, share all your griefs with Your real friend. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. X Post. To Elijah Bush [7] COLEFORD, September 11, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I was much concerned yesterday when I heard you were likely to marry a woman against the consent of your parents. I have never in an observation of fifty years known such a marriage attended with a blessing. I know not how it should be, since it is flatly contrary to the fifth commandment. I told my own mother, when pressing me to marry, ‘I dare not allow you a positive voice herein; I dare not marry a person because you bid me. But I must allow you a negative voice: I will marry no person if you forbid. I know it would be a sin against God.’ Take care what you do. Mr. S----- is not a proper judge; he hopes to separate you from the Methodists; and I expect, if you take this step, that will be the end. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Hall BATH, September 15, 1781.

DEAR PATTY, -- But when will the hundred pounds come I hear nothing about that. But fifty pounds of it were bespoke by him that sent me the first notice, and what could be done less For, you know, the messenger of good news should always be rewarded. However, if we live to meet again, probably something may be done without waiting for the legacy; and it is not impossible that you should procure half an hour's very private conversation into the bargain. I say still, you are one of the youngest women of your years that I know, [See letter of May 28 to her.] and perhaps it is your fervor that keeps you alive as well as keeps you from the gout and stone, to which you know we have an hereditary right. God does all things well. -- I am, dear Patty, Your affectionate friend and Brother. To John Bredin NEAR BRISTOL, September 22, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I supposed you to be a dying man, and had therefore no thought of your being an Assistant or even a traveling preacher. [Bredin had been at Athlone, and was now in the Londonderry Circuit, though his name does not appear in the Minutes. See letters of May 17 and Oct.] But if you can undertake it, do. The more exercise you use the better. But the morning preaching must not be left off on any account. That is the glory of the Methodists. It is hardly worth while to keep an horse for the sake of three or four little places. We have need to save all possible expense. Several of our preachers in England now walk their circuits.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. John Bredin, In Coleraine, Ireland. To Robert Lindsay [8] BRISTOL, October 7, 1781. DEAR ROBERT, -- The question is, ‘Is the chapel actually made over to Mr. Jacques and Egerton for that debt’ If not, they cannot sell it. Mr. Hunt will inform you how this is.

REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- I have some remembrance of receiving such a letter as you mention above a year ago. But as there was no name subscribed I did not know how to direct an answer. Your case is plain. You are in the hands of a wise Physician, who is lancing your sores in order to heal them. He has given you now the spirit of fear. But it is in order to the spirit of love and of a sound mind. You have now received the spirit of bondage. Is it not the forerunner of the Spirit of adoption He is not afar off. Look up! And expect Him to cry in your heart, Abba, Father! He is nigh that justifieth! that justifieth the ungodly and him that worketh not! If you are fit for hell, you are just fit for Him! If you are a mere sinner, He cannot cast you out! This evening, when our Society meets, we will spread the case before the Lord. And I trust it will not be a long time before your eyes shall see His salvation! -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. To the Rev. Mr. Davenport, At Allexton, Near Uppingham, Rutlandshire. To Hester Ann Roe LONDON, December 9, 1781. MY DEAR HETTY, -- We may easily account for those notices which we frequently receive, either sleeping or waking, upon the scriptural supposition that ‘He giveth His angels charge over us to keep us in all our ways.’ How easy is it for them, who have at all times so ready an access to our souls, to impart to us whatever may be a means of increasing our holiness or our happiness! So that we may well say with pious Bishop Ken, O may Thy angels, while we sleep, Around our beds their vigils keep, Their love angelical instill, Stop every avenue of ill! Without needing to use any other arguments, you have a clear proof in your own experience that our blessed Lord is both able and willing to give us always what He gives once; that there is no necessity of ever losing what we receive in the moment of justification or sanctification. But it is His will that all the light and love which we then receive should increase more and more unto the perfect day.

MY DEAR HETTY, -- In the success of Mr. Leach’s preaching we have one proof of a thousand that the blessing of God always attends the publishing of full salvation as attainable now by simple faith. But there is a danger here which is to be carefully guarded against--namely, lest the other preachers should be jealous of his success. This has been a very common case. And you can hardly conceive what a grievous hindrance it has always been to the work of God. Both he himself, therefore, and all that love him should do everything that is in their power to prevent it; he especially, by an humble, condescending, obliging behavior to his fellow laborers. And it will be prudent for you all not to speak too strongly in commendation of him in their hearing; for, you know, ‘the spirit that is in us lusteth to envy.’ I have never at all repented of my late journey to Chester [In April 1782. See Journal, vi. 313.]; a flame was kindled both there and at Wrexham, which I trust will not soon be put out. I do not know that I have spent a day at Chester with so much satisfaction for many a year. This afternoon I was agreeably surprised by a letter from our dear Miss Ritchie. [See his reply on Jan. 19.] It really seems as if God, in answer to many prayers, has lent her to us yet a little longer. He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up again. Wise are all His ways! I am not assured that there is not something preternatural in those pains which you frequently experience. Not improbably they are caused by a messenger of Satan, who is permitted to buffet you. But all is well; you find in this and all things His grace is sufficient for you. -- I always am, my dear Hetty, Most affectionately yours. To John Valton LONDON, January 18, 1782.

DEAR SIR, -- The letter you refer to as giving me an account of Mrs. Brackenbury’s illness I have never seen. I did not hear anything of it till I received Mr. Collins’s letter from Raithby. What a comfort it is that we know the Lord reigneth, and that He disposes all things in heaven and earth in the very manner which He sees will be most for His own glory and for the good of those that love Him. I am firmly persuaded the present dispensation, severe as it may appear, will be found in the event a means of greater blessings than any you have yet received. Even already you find the consolations of the Holy One are not small with you. And He enables you to make the right use of this providence by devoting yourself more entirely to His service. I am glad you have such a friend as Mr. Collins [Brian Bury Collins. See letter of June 14, 1780.] with you. I will write to Dr. Coke and desire him to look out for such a family near London as you want. I am not afraid of your speaking too little, but of your speaking too much. Stay! A thought just comes into my mind. On April the 4th I expect to be at Manchester, in order to visit the Societies in Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire; and thence to proceed (if God permit) to Scotland. Perhaps it would be of use if you took part of the journey with me. You may let me know your thoughts by a line directed to Manchester. Let Mr. Collins and you strengthen each other's hands in God.

I do not know anything that is amiss in the behavior either of Brother Fowler or his wife. But I do not know that he is called to preach. Certainly he should not go where they are not willing to hear him. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Francis Wrigley, At the Preach- ing-house, In Bradford, Wilts. [Wrigley (who was Assistant) was not appointed to Bradford-upon-Avon until the Conference in August. He was probably there earlier.] To John Bredin MANCHESTER, April 6, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It is probable I shall be able to hold a little Conference in Dublin before the middle of July. But you will hear more before that time. The four volumes of Sermons with the Notes on the New Testament (small edition) are the best books for Mr. Haslett. Any other of our books you may give to him or Mr. Dillon in my name. If Adam Clarke [See letters of Oct. 19, 1781, and July 9, 1782.] can come to London at the Conference, I will send him to Kingswood directly. You may take those three volumes of Magazines with as many as make up the set. You may likewise have the History of England and of the Church. John McKenny [John McKenny (whose son was one of the first missionaries in Ceylon) was a friend and classmate of Adam Clarke’s.] must take his choice. If he will refrain from going to that house, it will remove the offense. But if he will go, he does thereby put himself out of our Society. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Bredin, In Coleraine, Ireland. To Samuel Mitchell [15] MANCHESTER, April 6, 1782.

Two or three years ago, when the kingdom was in imminent danger, I made an offer to the Government of raising some men. The Secretary of War (by the King's order) wrote me word that ‘it was not necessary; but if it ever should be necessary, His Majesty would let me know.’ I never renewed the offer, and never intended it. But Captain Webb, without my knowing anything of the matter, went to Colonel Barr, the new Secretary of War, and renewed that offer. [Colonel Barr became Paymaster of the Forces in July. See letter of July 24.] The Colonel (I verily believe, to avoid his importunity) asked him how many men we could raise. But the Colonel is out of place. So the thing is at an end. I read over both the sermons; but I did not see anything materially wrong in either. -- I am, with love to Sister Benson, Your affectionate brother. We will consider what you propose. To Ann Bolton NEAR LONDON, August 3, 1782. MY DEAR NANCY, -- I thought you had known the truth of the old saying, ‘A Friend is made for adversity.’ Very probably you have suffered more by keeping your sufferings to yourself. But still we know the Lord is King and ruleth all things both in heaven and earth. I am glad your brother's distresses are a little relieved. I shall not be sorry when he is entirely quit of Finstock. I never expected great things from it; but I thought he knew better than me. [See letters of Sept. 9, 1781, and Jan. 5, 1783.] I believe, if you feed the poor man three or four weeks with absolutely nothing but bread and milk, it will totally restore his senses. I have known it tried here, and the patient recovered entirely. Miss Ritchie is just alive; she is still hovering between life and death. I have divided Nottingham Circuit into two, and stationed Brother Warwick [Thomas Warwick (1778-1809), who appears in the Minutes for Leicestershire, was a laborious and successful preacher. See letter of March 6, 1788.] in the Derby part of it. Do not, my dear Nancy, again delay so long writing to Yours most affectionately. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Hannah Ball LONDON, August 4, 1782.

MY DEAR SISTER, -- I almost wondered that I did not receive a line from you for so long a season. I could not easily believe that your love was grown cold; and I am glad to hear it is not. But it is a discouragement to see one month pass after another without any perceptible fruit of our labor, without any discernible outpouring of the Spirit, either in His convincing or converting influences. But beware you do not cast away hope! ‘He will come, and will not tarry.’ You know not how soon He may send on all around you A kindly gracious shower Of heart-reviving love! Look for it, my dear Hannah! Pray for it! Expect it soon! And you will not be disappointed. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, my sister and friend, Your affectionate brother. To John Bredin LONDON. August 4, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- In your present state you must not attempt to travel. It is as much as your life is worth. [See letters of July 9 and Nov. 30 to him.] You may be a supernumerary in whatever place you judge most advisable; and the little salary, the 12, we will allow from hence. I do not understand what is the accusation against Hugh Moore. [Moore moved from Londonderry to Aberdeen, See letter of April 10.] Simply administering an oath is a folly; but I know not that it is contrary to any law. If he is afraid of staying at Coleraine (although I know not why), let him change with a Sligo or Castlebar preacher. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Francis Wolfe [4] LONDON. August 6, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Necessity has no law. Till your strength is restored do all the good you can as a local preacher. According to my last regulations pray inform the preachers and Captain Williams my plan is this, -- Taunton, Thursday, Aug. 15; Exeter, Friday, Aug. 16; Plymouth, Monday, Aug. 19; St. Austell, Wednesday, Aug. 21; Helstone, Thursday, Aug. 22; Penzance, Friday and Saturday, Aug. 23 and 24; St. Just, Sunday, Aug. 25: and in the West, -- St. Ives, Thursday, Aug. 29; Redruth, Saturday, Aug. 31; St. Anne's, Redruth, Gwennap, Sept. 1. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Jasper Winscom LONDON, August 10, 1782.

From what motive a man should invent and publish all over England (for I have heard this in various places) an whole train of absolute, notorious falsehoods, I cannot at all imagine. On the contrary, I declare to all the world, (1) that Elizabeth Hobson was an eminently pious woman, that she lived and died without the least blemish of any kind, without the least stain upon her character; (2) that the relation could not possibly have been her own invention, as there were many witnesses to several parts of it, as Mr. Parker, the two attorneys whom she employed, Miss Hesmer, and many others; and (3) that I myself am fully persuaded that every circumstance of it is literally and punctually true. I know that those who fashionably deny the existence of spirits are hugely disgusted at accounts of this kind. I know that they incessantly labor to spread this disgust among those that are of a better mind, because if one of these accounts be admitted their whole system falls to the ground. But whoever is pleased or displeased, I must testify what I believe to be the truth. Indeed, I never myself saw the appearance of an unbodied spirit; and I never saw the commission of a murder. Yet upon the testimony of unexceptionable witnesses, I can firmly believe both one and the other. To William Robarts [9] FROME, September 12, 1782. I was much concerned when I saw you last; and as ‘life for delays no time will give,’ especially my life, which is far spent, I take the first opportunity of speaking once for all. You are in a large way of business, wherein I suppose you dear one (if not two or three) hundred a year. Over and above that you have an estate which, if you gave above thirty years' purchase, is an hundred a year. You have neither son nor daughter; and yet you cannot afford sixpence a month for the Magazine! Nay, you could not afford to give a guinea in a pressing case, viz. at the instance of an old tried friend!

Are you, then, in more debt than you can pay Or is your trade gone, so that it will no more than keep your house Do you clear nothing in the year If so, you may still lay up the annual income of your estate. (What you could sell it for is nothing to the purpose; you do not need to sell it.) Are you not, then, ‘laying up treasures upon earth’ And how is this consistent with Scripture Surely no more than living in adultery or habitual drunkenness. Those words of St. Paul have for some time past been much impressed on my mind, ‘If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, with such an one, no not to eat.’ Now, I cannot dear you of covetousness, deep, uncommon covetousness, such as I very rarely meet with. I do not know that in forty years I have asked a guinea of any other man that has denied me! So I have done! I give you up to God. I do not know that you will any more be troubled with Your former Friend. [Wesley was mistaken in his judgment, as the following reply from Robarts on September 16 shows. He was evidently using all possible economy that he might escape failure in business.]

I built the first preaching-house which was built for the people called Methodists -- namely, at Bristol in the year 1739. And, knowing no better, I suffered the first deed of trust to be drawn in the Presbyterian form. But Mr. Whitefield, hearing of this, wrote me a warm letter asking, Do you consider what you do If you let the trustees name the preachers, they may exclude you and all your brethren from preaching in the houses you have built. Pray let the deed be immediately canceled; to which the trustees immediately agreed. Afterwards I built the preaching-houses in Kingswood and at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. But I took care that none but myself should have any right to name preachers for them. About this time a preaching-house was built at Birstall by contributions and collections. But John Nelson, knowing no better, suffered a deed to be drawn without my consent or knowledge giving twelve or thirteen persons a power not only of placing but even of displacing the preachers at their pleasure. Had I then known of this I should have insisted on having it altered as that at Bristol. Soon after this I was informed that the houses at Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle were my property, and as such liable to descend to my heirs. I immediately procured a form to be drawn up by three of the most eminent counselors in London, whereby not only these houses but all hereafter to be built might be settled on such a plan as would infallibly secure them from the heirs of the proprietor for the purpose originally intended.

MY DEAR SISTER, -- Hitherto God has helped us. As the weather last night was exceeding rough, the captain did not think advisable to sail; for which I was not sorry. We expect to sail this morning, as it seems the storm is over; and probably we shall see Helvoetsluys to-morrow. Sally and my other companions are in perfect health, and are all in good spirits; knowing that they are under His protection whom the winds and the seas obey. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have indeed had a sea of troubles. But I have not yet heard any one say it was your own fault; which I wonder at, because it is the way of the world still (as it was in the days of Job) always to construe misfortune into sin. But you and I know that there is a God in the world, and that He has more to do in it than most men are aware of. So little do they advert to that great truth, ‘Even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.’ One thing only I have heard of you, which, if it be true, I should not commend: I mean, that you have wholly forsaken the poor Methodists, [Churchey adds this note: ‘This was a misrepresentation.--W.C.’] and do not so much as attend the public preaching. One was mentioning this a few days ago, when I was saying something in favor of you; and it stopped my mouth; nay, supposing it true, I do not know what to say yet. For surely, when affliction presses upon us, we need every possible help. Commending you to Him that careth for you, -- I am Your affectionate brother. PS.--My kind love to Sister Churchey. To Mr. Churchey, Near the Hay, Brecon. To Mrs. Dowries NEAR LONDON, November 21, 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Through the blessing of God I find no difference at all between the health and strength which are now given me and that which I had forty years ago. Only I had then many pains which I have not now. You are enabled to give a very clear and standing proof that weakness of nerves cannot prevent joy in the Lord. Your nerves have been remarkably weak, and that for many years, but still your soul can magnify the Lord and your spirit rejoice in God your Savior! Your affectionate brother. To Ann Loxdale NEAR LONDON, November 21, 1783.

As yet I do not know any reason why Mr. Blair may not spend the next year at Dublin. I agree with you that a year is generally quite enough for a preacher to spend in one place. When he stays longer, both the people and the preacher usually grow flat and dead together. This year, if God prolong my life and health, I am to visit Scotland; otherwise I should have willingly accepted your kind invitation. Peace be with you and yours! - I am, dear Arthur, Your affectionate brother. To Susanna Knapp [9] [BRISTOL, March 4, 1784.] MY DEAR SUKY, - I am glad to find you are still desiring and seeking the best portion. To-morrow fortnight I hope to see you at Worcester. It gives me pleasure to learn that Mrs. Knapp's health is in some measure restored. We are sure of this - Health we shall have if health be best. I am a good deal better than I was in autumn; but we are always well while we are in our Lord's hands. - I am, my dear Suky, Yours affectionately. To Miss Knapp, At Mr. Knapp's, Glover, In Worcester. To William Percival [10] BRISTOL March 4, 1784. DEAR BILLY, - I desire Mr. Murlin, if any of our lay preachers talk either in public or private against the Church or the clergy, or read the Church Prayers, or baptize children, [See letter of Jan. 6.] to require a promise from them to do it no more. If they will not promise, let them preach no more. And if they break their promise, let them be expelled the Society. From Macclesfield I expect to go to Chester, Monday, April 5; on Wednesday the 7th to Liverpool; Good Friday, April 9, Warrington; Saturday, 10th, Manchester; Tuesday, 13th, Bolton; Thursday, 15th, Wigan. - I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To Brian Bury Collins [11] BRISTOL, March 11, 1784.

Let the rail in the new preaching-house go down the middle of the room. We have found this the only effectual way of separating the men from the women. This must be done, whoever is pleased or displeased. [See letter of Sept. 16, 1785.] Blessed is the man that endureth temptation! When he has been tried, he shall come forth as gold. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton BURSLEM, April 1, 1784. MY DEAR NANCY, - The recovery of Mr. Boltoh's health and much more of his cheerfulness you should look upon as a token for good, a fresh proof that God is on your side. It is another blessing that your spirits do not sink, but you are still kept above the billows. It shows, indeed, how you are called to trust God, though without knowing which way He will lead you. In due time He will reveal this also and make it plain before your face. At present it is easier to know what is not to be done than what is. But you are in God's school, and He will teach you one lesson after another fill you have learned all His holy and acceptable will. O tarry thou the Lord's leisure. Be strong, and He shall comfort thy heart; and put thou thy trust in the Lord! - I am, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Hannah Ball EDINBURGH, April 25, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER, - It would not be strange if your love did grow cold. It would only be according to the course of nature. But, blessed be God, we know there is a power that controls the course of nature; and the affection which flows from this does not depend upon blood and spirits, and therefore ' never faileth.' I was afraid there had been some misunderstanding between Mr. Broadbent [John Broadbent, the Assistant.] and you. Let him and you be free and open with each other, and I trust nothing will hurt you. Whenever the preachers strongly exhort the people to accept of full sanctification, and to accept it now, by simple faith, there the work of God in general will prosper. This is the proper Methodist testimony! - I am, with kind love to Ann, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To his Nephew Charles Wesley [12] DUNDEE, May. 12, 1784.

O Sammy, you are out of your way! You are out of God's way! You have not given Him your heart. You have not found - nay, it is Well if you have so much as sought happiness in God! And poor zealots, while you are in this state of mind, would puzzle you about this or the other Church! O fools and blind! Such guides as these lead men by shoals to the bottomless pit. My dear Sammy, your first point is to repent and believe the Gospel. Know yourself a poor, guilty, helpless sinner! Then know Jesus Christ and Him crucified! Let the Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God, and let the love of God be shed abroad in your heart by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto you; and then, if you have no better work, I will talk with you of transubstantiation or purgatory. Meantime I commend you to Him who is able to guide you into all truth; and am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate Uncle. To Robert Jones, of Fenmen Castle [7] CARDIFF, August 27, 1784. DEAR SIR, - If you go abroad, I would by no means advise you to go to France. That is no place to save expense; but it is the only place to make your sons coxcombs and your daughters coquettes. I cannot but think there is no country in Europe which would answer your design so well as Holland; and no place in Holland so well as Utrecht. It is within a day's journey of Helvoetsluys, whence you go directly by the packet for England. It is an healthful and a pleasant city, and less expensive than almost any city in France. You may have more or less company as you please. There are schools for your children; and if you should choose it, an university for your sons: and I could recommend you to some valuable acquaintance. I speak freely, because I have your interest at heart. Think of it, and send your thoughts to, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Joseph Taylor BRISTOL, August 30, 1784.

Yours most affectionately. To Christopher Hopper [8] BRISTOL, August 31, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - It was your part to write to me of the behavior of William Eels, particularly at Warrington, without waiting till I heard of it from so many other persons. Seeing I find I cannot overcome him by love, I am at length constrained to let him drop. Pray inform him he is no longer in the number of our itinerant preachers. I shall to-day send another preacher to supply his place in the Bolton Circuit. I have done all I could to save him; but it is. in vain; so I must at length give him up. - I am Your affectionate brother and friend. To William Pitt, First Lord of the Treasury [9] BATH, September 6, 1784. SIR, - Your former goodness, shown to one of my relations Mr. Thomas Ellison, [For John Ellison, see letter of Sept. 7, 1777; and for Captain Webb, May 25, 1782.] emboldens me to take the liberty of recommending to your notice an old friend, Lieutenant Webb. On my mentioning formerly some of his services to Lord North, his lordship was pleased to order him 100 a year. But as it has since been reduced, it is hardly a maintenance for himself and his family. If you would be so good as to remember him in this or any other way, I should esteem it a particular favor. Will you excuse me, sir, for going out of my province by hinting a few things which have been long upon my mind If those hints do not deserve any further notice, they may be forgiven and forgotten. New taxes must undoubtedly be imposed; but may not more money be produced by the old ones For instance: 1. When the land tax is four shillings in the pound, I know some towns which pay regularly seven- or fivepence. Nay, I know one town where they pay one penny in the pound. Is there no help for this 2. As to window tax: I know a gentleman who has near a hundred windows in his house; he told me he paid for twenty. 3. The same gentleman told me, 'We have above an hundred men servants in this town, but not above ten are paid for.'

You should send me a full and particular account of that poor man at Inverness. I am to set out for London to-morrow. I hope Dr. Coke and his companions are now near half-way over the Atlantic. Although I dreamed last night (indeed at two o'clock this morning) that he came to me with a calm and placid countenance, but exceeding pale and his hair all wet. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Richard Rodda LONDON, October 13, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I have no objection to your having a third preacher in the circuit. [Birmingham had three preachers next Conference.] But what to say of John Oliver I know not. [Oliver married Elizabeth Booth. See Journal, iv. 70-1; and letter of Oct. 25, 1780.] He has been greatly to blame. But who can tell whether he be inwardly changed or not Your proposal of building a new preaching-house I like well, provided it can be done without bringing any burthen upon the Conference. Complaint is made to me that the preaching is taken from Stourshead. If so, I am sorry for it. Peace be with you and yours! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Rodda, At the Preaching-house, In Birmingham To John Valton [16] LONDON, October 13, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Dr. Davison's advice was good. I desire you would not offer to preach within these four weeks. I was suspended for near four months; but good is the will of the Lord. I suppose nettle tea is the best bracer in the world; and next that, elixir of vitriol (ten drops in a glass of water at ten or eleven in the morning). I am inclined to think that temptation is purely preternatural. I was strongly assaulted by it toward the close of my fever, when I could hardly set a foot to the ground. Many years ago I told you the case of Mr. Colley, who was just in your case. He married and died. And do we not know All the promises are sure To persevering prayer I am ever yours. To William Black LONDON, October 15, 1784.

DEAR JERRY,-If I live till the Conference, I shall have no objection to your begging in the Newcastle and Sunderland Circuits. But let them not build a scarecrow of an house like most of those in the North. Copy after that at Newcastle or Yarm, which is one of the prettiest in England. Look at the Minutes of the Conference with regard to the building of preaching-houses, and follow those advices. - I am, dear Jerry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Brettell, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To Thomas Taylor [22] LONDON, December 24, 1784. DEAR TOMMY, - In fifty years I have not met with six mothers who did not suffer their children to cry aloud - no, nor seriously endeavored it. So that I see no manner of need to caution them against that extreme. To speak without reserve, I believe John Valton to be a better Assistant than either you or me. I believe he has more of the Spirit of God resting upon him and is more deeply devoted to God than almost any man or woman I know. And I do not think myself a jot better than him because I was born forty years before him. But I earnestly desire he would go to Bristol, and that you would supply his place as Assistant I am of opinion this is the only possible means of restoring his strength. - I am, with kind love to Sister Taylor, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. I corrected the last part of the new Hymn-Book this morning. [A Collection of Pslams and Hymns for the Lord's Day. See Green's Bibliography, No. 378.]

... I am in the enjoyment of such health as I have never had before. Mr. Henry said, 'I bless God that I am never tired of my work, yet I am often tired in my work.' By the blessing of God I can say more: I am never tired in my work. From the beginning of the day or the week or the year to the end I do not know what weariness means. I am never weary of writing or preaching or traveling; but am just as fresh at the end as at the beginning. Thus it is with me to-day, and I take no thought for to-morrow. I am in hopes Dr. Coke will come to you. [See letter of July 3, 1784.] To Mr. Barry, Shelburne, Nova Scotia. To Mrs. Freeman [4] LONDON, February 1, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - So strange things come to pass I I did not expect to hear of Mr. Smyth's 'living in lodgings.' I do not remember the person who is so kind as to offer me a lodging; and I know no reason why I should not accept of it if I live to see Dublin again.' It gives me pleasure to hear that the work of God flourishes among you. I did not doubt but it would when He sent that earnest couple [Mr. and Mrs. James Rogers.] to Dublin. He will send a blessing with them wherever they go. And that you and yours may partake of it more and more is the wish of, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Samuel Bardsley [5] LONDON, February 12, 1785. DEAR BROTHER, - Mr. Wesley desires me to inform you that he is glad to find that you go on so well in your circuit, and hopes that the work of the Lord will prosper more and more. Mr. Wesley cannot say anything positive respecting his coming into your circuit, but does intend to contrive to pay you a visit, though his usual way, you know, is but once in two years. I suppose you will know in time before he comes. Peace be with your spirit! - I am Yours affectionately, To Adam Clarke [6] LONDON, February 12, 1785.

Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Wren [10] BIRMINGHAM, March 26, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - I thank you for the clear and circumstantial account you have given me of the manner when God wrought upon your soul. As tie wrought the work both of justification and sanctification so distinctly, you have the less temptation to cast away your confidence. But you cannot keep it unless you are zealous of good works. Be fruitful, therefore, in every good work, and God shall renew you in His whole image. - I am Yours affectionately. To Ann Bolton WEDNESBURY, March 28, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - You are in danger of falling into both extremes - of making light of as well as fainting under His chastening. This you do whenever you look at any circumstance without seeing the hand of God in it, without seeing at the same instant, this unkindness, this reproach, this returning evil for good, as well as this faintness, this weariness, this pain, is the cup which my Father hath given me. And shall I not drink it Why does He give it me Only for my profit, that I 'may be a partaker of His holiness.' I have often found an aptness both in myself and others to connect events that have no real relation to each other. So one says, 'I am as sure this is the will of God as that I am justified.' Another says, 'God as surely spake this to my heart as ever He spoke to me at all.' This is an exceedingly dangerous way of thinking or speaking. We know not what it may lead us to. It may sap the very foundation of our religion. It may insensibly draw us into Deism or Atheism. My dear Nancy, my sister, my friend, beware of this! The grace of God is sufficient for you! And, whatever clouds may interpose between His banner over you is love. Look to yourself that you lose not the things that you have gained, but that you may receive a full reward. Adieu! To Mrs. Fletcher [11] MANCHESTER, April 2, 1755.

1785 To Ann Bolton DUBLIN, July 8, 1785. MY DEAR NANCY, - It is undoubtedly expedient for you to have a friend in whom you can fully confide that may be always near you or at a small distance, and ready to be consulted on all occasions. The time was when you took ma to be your friend; and (to speak freely) I have loved you with no common affection. I 'have loved you' - nay, I do still; my heart warms to you while I am writing. But I am generally at too great a distance, so that you cannot converse with me when you would. I am glad, therefore, that a good Providence has given you one whom you can more easily see and correspond with. [Probably Hannah Ball.] You may certainly trust her in every instance; and she has both understanding, piety and experience. She may therefore perform those offices of friendship which I should rejoice to perform were I near you. But wherever you can, give me the pleasure of seeing you. You know, while I have an house, you will always be welcome to it. I desire Brother Day [Simon Day, then in the Oxfordshire Circuit. The Conference opened that day in London.] to meet me in London, on the 16th instant. I do not know how you can have more preaching by the traveling preachers unless you had more preachers; which, indeed, might easily be if your moneyed men did not love their money more than they do their souls. I hope neither marriage nor business makes Neddy [Edward Bolton, her brother, whose daughter, Mrs. Marriott, gave the letter to Miss J. Ayliff at Witney in 1861.] less zealous for God or less active in his work. Peace be with all your spirits! - I am, my dear Nancy, Ever yours. To Thomas Wride [1] DUBLIN, July 8, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - I wonder at nothing in poor Nicholas, but I wonder much at James .Kershaw. Unless our preachers had already left their preaching-house, surely he would not have let it to any others! I love John Fenwick well; but I know he was a faulty man that once or twice. However, if there be no fresh matter of complaint, what is past shall go for nothing.

How 'confound their intellects' How 'weaken your hands' I know nothing which I do to prevent the possible separation but pray. God forbid I should sin against Him by ceasing to pray for the Church of England and for you while any breath remains in me. - I am Your affectionate Brother. To Jasper Winscom [6] BRISTOL, September 13, 1785. DEAR JASPER, - I think I can serve you as far as 100 will go. If you can pay me in a year, you may; if not, I shall not quarrel with you about it. I want no interest. You may draw upon John Atlay for it, to whom I shall write this morning. - I am, dear Jasper, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Fletcher [7] BRISTOL, September 16, 1785. My DEAR SISTER, - I wanted much to hear from you, being desirous to know whether you have thought where you should settle if God should please to prolong your life. I should love to be as near you as I could; and on that account should be glad if you chose Bristol or London. I expect to be in town on Monday fortnight, October the 1st. Mr. Ireland has printed a thousand or two of your Letters, [About her husband's last illness.] with some little variations, I think for the worse! Peace be with your spirit! - I am, my dear sister, Ever yours. I am glad the people desire to join us. I shall reprint your letter when I come to London. To Mrs. Fletcher, at Madeley, Near Shifnal, Salop. To Thomas Wride KINGSWOOD, September 16, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - Your next will, I suppose, find me in London, where I hope to be in about a fortnight. We know not what stops our northern schoolmaster, and expect to see him every day. As soon as he comes, Mr. Jones [Thomas Jones was his colleague, just admitted on trial. He does not seem to have been able to leave Kingswood, and James M. Byron was sent. See letter of Nov. 8 to Wride.] will make the best of his way to Norwich. I leave it wholly to you whether and how far you should accept of Dr. Hunt's offer. [See letter of Feb. 25.] With regard to Mr. Proud and your capital singer, you acted exactly right; but I expect you will hear of it at both ears.

MY DEAR SISTER, - It is highly probable my letter to you was intercepted by some person of the same name, who, opened it (likely by a mistake) was afterwards ashamed to send it you. However, as you have now favored me better information, I hope there will be no such mistake the time to come. But I beg, when you write to do not write as to a stranger, but a friend. Be not afraid me because I have lived so much longer than you. I nothing upon that account, but wish to stand upon ground with you and to converse without either disguise reserve. I love you all three and not a little, especially your sisters spoke so freely to me; yet I do not say in the same degree. There is a mildness and sweetness in your spirit, such as I wish to find in one that is more to me than a common friend. Not that I impute this to nature; whatever is truly amiable is not of nature, but from a higher principle. Cultivate this, my dear friend, to the uttermost. Still learn of Him who was meek and lowly in heart. Oh, what a blessing it is to be little and mean and vile in our own eyes! You are an amiable woman, it is true; but still you are a sinner, born to die! You are an immortal spirit come forth from God and speedily returning to Him. You know well that one thing, and one only, is needful for you upon earth - to ensure a better portion, to recover the favor and image of God. The former by His grace you have recovered; you have tasted of the love of God. See that you cast it not away. See that you hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast unto the end! And how soon may you be made a partaker of sanctification! And not only by a slow and insensible growth in grace, but by the power of the Highest overshadowing you in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, so as utterly to abolish sin and to renew you in His whole image!

DEAR BROTHER, - I am glad you are again able to officiate at the chapels. Let us ' anage wisely the last stake.' [See letter of June 27, 1755.] For some years John Davis was a mere mule; he would neither lead nor drive. But it is enough that he finished his course well; and we are sure Nancy Sharland did so. [See letter of Nov. 15, 1780.] Sammy Bradburn thought of going further with me. But the frost and snow drove him back. I believe the loss of his wife will be one of the greatest blessings which he has ever met with in his life. [On March 13 he had taken Bradburn to travel with him. On the 2ist at Gloucester he proposed marriage to Sophia Cooke (who suggested to Raikes his Sunday-School efforts), and they were married on Aug. 10. See letters of Feb. 14 and June 20.] Mrs. Fletcher will not be in haste to remove from Madeley, though her light is there almost hid under a bushel. Mr. Ireland will give me no help with regard to writing Mr. Fletcher's Life, 'because he intends to publish it himself!' [He was at Madeley on March 26. See letters of Oct. 2 and Dec. 31, 1785.] Let him do it, and I will follow him. Where is your elegy [See letter of Dec. 9 to Mrs. Fletcher.] You may say as my father in his verses on Mr. Nelson [Robert Nelson, the Nonjuror, who did much to promote schools and parochial libraries. See letter of June 13, 1733, n.] Let friendship's sacred name excuse The last effort of an expiring muse. Can you or I ever have such another subject Melville Horne hopes to be ordained on Trinity Sunday. Indeed, I love the Church as sincerely as ever I did; and I tell our Societies everywhere, 'The Methodists will not leave the Church, at least while I live.' I doubt I shall not half agree with our friends in Scotland; but I shall know more and you will hear more when I see them.

While I live Dr. Coke and I shall go through Ireland by turns. He will have work enough this year with gentle Edward Smyth. [Smyth opened Bethesda Chapel, Dublin, on June 25.] I doubt Edward 'needs a bridle'; but who can put the bit into his mouth I am not sorry your concerts are come to an end. [The concerts given by his sons in their father's house; Wesley attended one on Jan. 25, 1781. Samuel had become a Roman Catholic; his father's dream probably had been on this subject, and the text points to Wesley's hope of a coming restoration. See Journal, vi. 303; and letters of Aug. 19, 1784, and March 18, 1788, to his nephew.] Remember 'your dream concerning Sammy! 'The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth!' Mr. Pennant's I know, and Dr. Johnson's I know; but I know nothing of Mr. Boswell's Tour to the Hebrides. [Boswell's Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides was published in 1786.] I should imagine it was worth reading. Peace be with all your spirits! Adieu! To Hannah Ball LIVERPOOL, April 13, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - I am glad to hear that your Society prospers and that the work of God continues to increase in the town. It always will if prayer-meetings are kept up (without interfering with the classes and bands). These have been and still are attended with a blessing in every part of England. And Sister Coussins, [Jonathan Coussins was now Assistant in Oxfordshire.] joining heart and hand with you, may greatly forward the work of God. See that there never be any shyness or coldness between you, Still provoke one another to love and to good works.

MY DEAR SISTER, - You do well to write. I am well pleased to hear you do not let go the blessing which God has given you. See that you hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast unto the end. And you know there are still greater blessings behind I There is no end of His goodness. If any of our brethren in Sligo ['I presume it was to Sarah M'Kim, of Sligo' (C. H. Crookshank).] will give you a guinea, he may receive it again of Mr. Rogers in Dublin. - I am, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To the Mayor of Liverpool [2] BRISTOL, July 29, 1786. SIR, - Some preachers in connection with me have thought it their duty to call sinners to repentance even in the open air. If they have violated any law thereby, let them suffer the penalty of that law. But if not, whoever molests them on that account will be called to answer it in His Majesty's Court of King's Bench. I have had a suit already in that court, with a magistrate (Heap), and if I am forced to it am ready to commence another. - I am, sir, Your obedient servant. To Mr. Torry BRISTOL, July 30, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - We [Conference met in Bristol on July 25 and closed on Aug. 1.] entirely disapprove of such a division of the Hull Circuit as has been sent to us. We totally reject the thought of a preacher staying a fortnight together in one place. There is no precedent of this in England, nor shall be as long as I live. I have desired those of our Brethren who are acquainted with this and the neighboring county to draw up a Methodist Plan. [The following is the Plan, with the original spelling: Hull, Wednesday. Shorley, Thursday. Wo'thering, Week Friday. Ross or Remswell, Saturday. Paterington, Sunday. Melton, Munday. Cave, Tuesday. Gilberdike, Wednesday. Laxton, Thursday. Esterington, Friday. Newbold, Saturday. Beverley, Sunday & Munday. Theton, Tuesday. Hull, he that is in Hull. Skitby, Tuesday. Cottingham, Wednesday. Newland, Thursday. Hasel, Friday. Pocklington, Saturday & Sunday. Br. Wilton,} Munday. Grimston,} Tuesday. Acklam, Wednesday. Bugthorp, Thursday. Fankioss, Friday. Assalby, Saturday. Howden, Sunday noon. Spanden, Sunday night. Hoggerthorp, Munday. Seetown, Tuesday. Holm, Wednesday & Thursday. Numberaura, Friday. Shipton, Saturday. Weigton, Sunday noon & night. Drifteld, Monday. Gatton, Tuesday. Frodingham, Wednesday. Nafferton, Thursday. Reeston, Friday.

MY DEAR BROTHER, - At length Jenny has broke through, and given me the satisfaction of exchanging a few words with her. You send us strange news that the lions of Wales are become lambs! I really think a spirit of humanity and benevolence is gone forth upon the earth, perhaps intimating that the time is drawing near when men shall not know war any more. Mr. Wrigley has been detained here by a sore face ever since the Conference; but is now also on the mending hand, though he is not yet able to go abroad. [Francis Wrigley, Assistant at Redruth.] I am glad to hear that Dr. Powell, of Brecon, continues in the good way. He seems to be of a frank, open temper, and to be skilful in his profession. I am rather gaining than losing ground as to my health. I think Mr. Cowper has done as much as is possible to be done with his lamentable story. I can only wish he had a better subject. [The Task was published in June 1785. See letter of July 22, 1788, to Churchey.] Peace be with you and yours! - I am Your affectionate brother. I set out for London on Monday. To Elizabeth Briggs [8] BRISTOL, September 24, 1786. MY DEAR BETSY, - I thank you for the letters which you sent, and shall be glad to see those which you mention. There is no doubt but Shoreham is the place which God at present points out for your residence, and it is well that you have such an assistant there as honest Sampson Staniforth. Great care should be taken to preserve a perfect good understanding between him and the traveling preachers. I know not who in Shoreham is able to give me a night's lodging now. Tomorrow I expect to set out for London. - I am, my dear Betsy, Yours affectionately. To William Robarts BRISTOL, September 25, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I doubt not but you could say in the hour of trial, 'The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: blessed be the name of the Lord!'

MY DEAR BROTHR, - The sooner the affair is settled the better. I desire, therefore, that Mr. Ashman will receive what is in Mr. Smith's hands. You say you can borrow as much more than Mr. Gifford's ten pounds as will make up the hundred. As soon as this is paid the house may be transferred to five or more trustees on the Conference plan. I forbid engaging any attorney. [The new chapel at Winchester had been opened the previous November. See letter of Sept. 13, 1785.] You have the form of conveyance in the Minutes, which anyone may transcribe. - I am Your affectionate brother. To the Rev. Mr. L. --- LONDON, October 25, 1786. Last night I had a long conversation with a few sensible men concerning going to church. [The conversation was evidently at Deptford. See Journal, vii. 217.] I asked them what objection they had to the hearing of Mr. L---. They answered, 'They could not hear him. He generally spoke so low that they lost a good part of what he said; and that what they could was spoken in a dead, cold, languid manner, as if he did not feel anything which he spoke.' This would naturally disgust them the more, because Dr. C[oke] leaned to the other extreme. I doubt there is some ground for their objection. But I should think you might easily remove it. I asked again, Have you any objection to anything in his behavior 'They answered, 'One thing we cannot approve of - his being ashamed of the Methodists. His never recommending or defending them at all, we think, is a full proof of this; for everyone knows his near relation and his many obligations to you. They know how you have loved and cherished him from a child.' They might have added, 'You owe your whole education to him; and therefore, in effect, your ordination, your curacy, your school, yea, and your wife: none of which you would in all likelihood have had had it not been for him.'

I would add a word upon this head myself. I do not think you act wisely. Not one of your genteel friends can be depended on: they are mere summer flies. Whereas, had you condescended to make the Methodists your friends, they would have clave to you, one and all. And they are already no inconsiderable body of people; besides that they are increasing more and more. Suffer me now to speak a word between you and me. Is not the reason of your preaching so languidly and coldly, that you do not feel what you say And why not Because your soul is not alive to God! Do you know that your sins are forgiven I fear not. Can you say, 'I know that my Redeemer liveth' I doubt, if you did know it once, whether you know it now Have you fellowship with the Father and the Son Alas! 'tis well if you know what it means! And are you content to have your portion in this world Do you favor only earthly things Then I do not wonder that you are shy to the Methodists; for they are not to your taste! O think and pray to-day! For I do not promise you that you shall live another year! I now give you a full proof that I am Your truly affectionate. To John Valton [12] LONDON, October 29, 1786.

MY DEAR BROTHER, - Striking a woman in the street, and crying amain, Strumpet, strumpet! was enough to enrage a woman, even to madness. It had not been strange if, instead of scolding, she had shot her husband or herself. I wonder she can sustain life. Do not cast water upon a drowning man; and take care of receiving anything upon Joseph Brundrell's testimony. Speaking is not the thing, but revealing what is spoken in band, had it been true. Unless Sister Pitt [See letter of Oct. 9 to Valton.] be convinced of this sin, I will expel her the Society the first time I come to Bath. I must do justice if the sky falls. I am the last resort. A word to the wise! I am sure Michael Griffith [See letter of Dec. 22.] is good enough for the place, if he is not too good. I hope Mr. Jones is set out for Brecon. [Thomas Jones had been appointed there.] See that Michael have fair play. John Atlay knows nothing about the hundred pounds; neither do I. I am afraid it is a castle in the air, I am glad to hear you have so fair a prospect in the circuit. You will find all things work together for good. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Wride [13] LONDON, October 29, 1786. DEAR TOMMY, - I am entirely of your mind. If any man (to waive everything else) can make me sleep without touching me, he may call the matter what he pleases; I know it is not magnetism, but magic. Mr. Mears did not tell me (that I know) anything about letters one, two, three. Women told me at Chatham. 'We called on Mrs. Wride and offered her any service in our power; but she was so sullen and surly, we had not the heart to go again.' But is it true, Tommy, that you have an estate left you I fear it is not so large as the Duke of Bedford's! I should be glad to bring you all to a good agreement. If I knew how. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore [14] LONDON, Novernber 4, 1786.

I see nothing of your Journal yet. I am afraid of another American Revolution. I do not know how to get the enclosed safe to Dr. Coke; probably you know. On second thoughts I think it best not to write to him at present. To Samuel Bradburn [20] December, 1786. DEAR SAMMY, - You know I love you. Ever since I knew you I have neglected no way of showing it that was in my power. And you know how I esteem you for .your zeal and activity, for your love of discipline, and for your gifts which God has given you - particularly quickness of apprehension, and readiness of utterance, especially in prayer. Therefore I am jealous over you, lest you should lose any of the things you have gained, and not receive a full reward; and the more so because I fear you are wanting in other respects. And who will venture to tell you so You will scarce know how to bear it from me unless you lift up your heart to God. If you do this, I may venture to tell you what I fear without any further preface. I fear you think of yourself more highly than you ought to think. Do not you think too highly of your own understanding of your gifts, particularly in preaching, as if you were the very best preacher in the Connection of your own importance, as if the work of God here or there depended wholly or mainly on you and of your popularity, which I have found, to my surprise, far less, even in London, than I expected May not this be much owing to the want of brotherly love With what measure you mete, men will measure to you again. I fear there is something unloving in your spirit - something not only of roughness, but of harshness, yea of sourness! Are you not also extremely open to prejudice, and not easy to be cured of it so that whenever you are prejudiced you commence bitter, implacable, unmerciful If so, that people are prejudiced against you is both the natural and the judicial consequence.

MY DEAR SALLY, -- When my appetite was entirely gone, so that all I could take at dinner was a roasted turnip, it was restored in a few days by riding out daily, after taking ten drops of elixir of vitriol in a glass of water. It is highly probable this would have the same effect in my brother's case. But in the meantime I wish he would see Dr. Whitehead. [John Whitehead. See letter of Oct. 15, 1766.] I am persuaded there is not such another physician in England; although (to confound human wisdom) he does not know how to cure his own wife. He must lie in bed as little as possible in the daytime; otherwise it will hinder his sleeping at night. Now, Sally, tell your brothers from me [See letter of March 5.] that their tenderly respectful behavior to their father (even asking his pardon if in anything they have offended him) will be the best cordial for him under heaven. I know not but they may save his life thereby. To know nothing will be wanting on your part gives great satisfaction to, my dear Sally, Yours very affectionately. To Sarah Mallet [6] BATH, March 11, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I should have been exceedingly glad to see you; for I have a tender affection for you, and I shall always be well pleased to hear from you and to know how your soul prospers. I do not wonder you should have trials: you may expect them from every quarter. You tread daily on dangers, snares, and death. But they cannot hurt you whilst your heart cleaves to God. Beware of pride! Beware of flatterers! Beware of dejections! But above all beware of inordinate affection! Those who profit by you will be apt to love you more than enough; and will not this naturally lead you into the same temptation Nay, Sally, is not this the case already Is your heart filled wholly with God Is it clear of idols I think you can speak to me freely, though on so delicate a subject you can hardly speak to anyone else. Is He still the sole object of your desire, the treasure and joy of your heart Considering your age and sex and situation, what but Omnipotence can keep you in the midst of the fire

You will not take it amiss if I ask you another question. I know that neither your father nor uncle is rich; and in traveling up and down you will want a little money. Are you not sometimes straitened Only let me know, and you shall want nothing that is in the power of, my dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Charles Atmore BRISTOL, March 13, 1788. DEAR CHARLES, -- My journeys now grow rather too long to be taken in one year. I am strongly importuned to shorten them by not attempting to journey through Scotland any more. But this I cannot comply with; only thus far: I do not purpose visiting the North of Scotland. I must move in a smaller circle. I intend with God's help to visit first Dumfries, then Glasgow and Edinburgh, and from Edinburgh to return into England, where (even if I reach Newcastle by the end of May) I shall have full as much work as I can do before I return to London to prepare for the Conference. You must needs pay a short visit to Ayr. That little Society must not be neglected. But I cannot imagine what can be done to build up the infant Society at Dumfries. If I can find a proper person as I come along, I will bring or send them a preacher. Charles, be zealous! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Attoore, In Glasgow. To Samuel Bradburn [7] BRISTOL, March 13, 1788. DEAR SAMMY, -- With regard to my brother, I advise you: (1) Whether he will or no (at least, if not done already), carry Dr. Whitehead [See letter of March 7.] to him. (2) If he cannot go out, and yet must have exercise or die, persuade him to use [the wooden horse [See letters of July 17, 1785, and Aug. 18, 1790.] twice or thrice a day, and procure one for him. (3) I earnestly advise him to be electrified; not shocked, but only filled with electric fire. (4) Inquire if he has made his will, though I think it scarcely possible he should have delayed it. The tunes which Brother Rhodes left with you should be immediately printed in the cheap form. Kind love to Sophy. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Nephew Charles Wesley BRISTOL, March 16, 1788.

MY DEAR SALLY, -- I thank you for the account you have given me. It is full and satisfactory. You describe a very awful scene. The time, I doubt not, was prolonged on purpose that it might make the deeper impression on those that otherwise might soon have forgotten it. What a difference does one moment make! When the soul springs out of time into eternity, what an amazing change! What are all the pleasures, the business of this world, to a disembodied spirit! Let us, therefore, be ready. For the day is at hand! But the comfort is it cannot part you long from, my dear Sally, Yours invariably. To Miss Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, Marybone, London. To Peard Dickinson CHESTER, April 15, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- My brother never knew the value of Dr. Coke while he lived. [Charles Wesley was afraid that Dr. Coke was leading his brother to take steps which involved separation from the Church of England.] I wish I had an hundred preachers like him. If you expected me to die within the year, you should not have printed so large editions. For you know not who will buy them when I am gone. [A new edition of the four volumes of Wesley's Sermons was published on Jan. 1, 1788, and four other volumes of sermons were in preparation. See Green's Bibliography, No. 397.] While we live let us live in earnest. I have little fear for Sally, much hope for Charles (to whom I wrote lately), and some for Sammy. He certainly fears God. I will have the Tunes s printed as soon as may be. If the corrected copy is lost, they must be printed from the large copy; but the price must be only two shillings and sixpence. Pray consult with T. Olivers where the additional sermons may be most properly inserted. [Tunes left by Mr. Rhodes. See letter of March 13.] I have another ready for the press and two more begun. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Adam Clarke [13] LIVERPOOL, April 17, 1788.

DEAR ADAM, -- Is it not a doubt whether you will be suffered to build a chapel so near the Chapel-of-Ease I should be afraid one congregation would hinder the other if ever they meet at the same hour. Then in England no house of worship must be built within so many yards of any other. I am glad you have gained Mrs. Saumarez and Miss Lempriere; and I hope Mrs. Walker, jun., is not lost. When I heard of Jenny Bisson's marriage, I was much afraid she had lost ground. I am glad to hear that you think she is still alive to God; but I shall be surprised if she be as much alive as ever. [See letter of May 20 (to Mrs. Cock).] So you are a proficient in French. If you come to the Conference, the way will be made plain for you. But if you have not your health in the islands, you must spend part of your time in England. -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Charles Wesley BLACKBURN, April 21, 1788. You will excuse me, my dear sister, for troubling you with so many letters, for I know not how to help it. I had you and your family so much upon my heart, both for your own sake and for the sake of my brother. But I am much easier now that I find you are joined with honest John Collinson, whom I know to be not only a man of probity, but likewise a man of diligence and understanding. I am therefore persuaded he will spare no pains in doing what you wish to be done. So that I shall [not] be wanted you, as he will fully supply my lack of service. [On his return to London Wesley had breakfast with Charles Wesley's family. See letter of July 6, 1788; and for Collinson, that of May 20, 1769.] I only both Charles and Sammy may follow your example and advice [See letter of April 12 to her.] in keeping little company, and those of the best sort, men sound understanding and solid piety; for such only are for the acquaintance of men of sense. I commit you all to Him that loves you, and am, my dear Sister, Ever yours. To his Niece Sarah Wesley [14] BLACKBURN, April 21, 1788.

I have sometimes thought you are a little like me. My wife used to tell me, 'My dear, you are too generous. You don't know the value of money.' I could not wholly deny the charge. Possibly you may sometimes lean to the same extreme. I know, you are of a generous spirit. You have an open heart and an open hand. But may it not sometimes be too open, more so than your circumstances will allow. Is it not an instance of Christian (as well as worldly) prudence, 'To cut our coat according to our cloth' If your circumstances are a little narrower, should you not contract your expenses too I need but just give you this hint, which I doubt not you will take kindly from, my dear Sally, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Crook [5] LONDON, July 27, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Is it not enough that I am alive to-day Let God take thought for what is to come. Ten pounds will be allowed for Brother Barrowclough and you; six for you, and four for him. You did well in sending the collections to the Conference according to our rules. You see you are no loser by it. If my life is prolonged, I shall probably set out for Ireland at the usual time--namely, the latter end of March. But how much grace may we receive and how much good may we do before that time! -- I am, with kind love to Sister Crook, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Trustees of Dewsbury [6] LONDON, July 30, 1788. MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- The question between us is, 'By whom shall the preachers sent from time to time to Dewsbury be judged' You say, 'By the trustees.' I say, 'By their peers -- the preachers met in Conference.' You say, 'Give up this, and we will receive them.' I say, 'I cannot, I dare not, give up this.' Therefore, if you will not receive them on these terms, you renounce connection with Your affectionate brother. To Sarah Mallet LONDON, August 2, 1788.

MY DEAR SISTER, -- Let me know any time what books you wish to have, and I will order them to be sent to you. [See letters of March 11 and Dec. 26.] It is a pleasure to me if I can show in anything the regard which I have for you, as I am firmly persuaded that you have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward man. I do not doubt but you have given God your heart, and do in all things wish to do His holy and acceptable will. But if so, it is no wonder that you should meet with crosses, both from the devil and his children, especially as you believe you are called of God to bear a public testimony against him. But you are in far greater danger from applause than from censure; and it is well for you that one balances the other. But I trust you will never be weary of well doing. In due time you shall reap if you faint not. Whoever praises or dispraises, it is your part to go steadily on, speaking the truth in love. I do not require any of our preachers to license either themselves or the places where they preach. [For the Act, see Tyerman'a Wesley, iii. 512.] Indeed, a forward young man in Northamptonshire brought some trouble on himself by preaching in church time, and so near the church as to disturb both the minister and the congregation. But that need not fright any other of our preachers. They are just as safe as they were before. Go on, therefore, and fear nothing but sin. And let me know if there be anything wherein I can assist you, which will be a pleasure to, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To our Societies in England and Ireland [7] LONDON, August 2, 1788.

MY DEAR BROTER, -- I think you know that I love you and that I should rejoice to do anything for you that is in my power. And one allowed proof of love is plain dealing. Therefore I will speak to you without any reserve. There are many good lines, and some very good, both in the ode and in the translation of The Art of Painting. And I really think you improve in versifying: you write a good deal better than you did some years ago. You express your sense with more perspicuity than you used to do, and appear to have greater variety of words as well as more strength. But there is nothing (to use the modern cant word) sentimental in either the ode or the translation. There is nothing of tender or pathetic, nothing that touches the passions. Therefore no bookseller would venture to buy them, as knowing they will not sell. And they lie utterly out of the way of the Methodists, who do not care to buy or even to read (at least the generality of them) any but religious books. I do not believe all my influence would induce them to buy as many copies as would suffice to pay for the printing. I have not yet seen my brother's translation of the Psalms. Neither, indeed, could I as yet have time to read it, were it put into my hands. If any had asked my advice, they would not have thrust out the account of George Lukins [Lukins had been exorcised in the Vestry of Temple Church, Bristol. See Journal, vii. 362.] into the world so prematurely. It should have been fully authenticated first. I am, with love to Sister Churchey, Your affectionate brother. I expect to be at Brecon on Sunday se'nnight. To Arthur Keene LONDON, August 8, 1788.

MY DEAR ARTHUR, -- Even at this busy time I must snatch a few minutes to write. You have now an easy way to show your affection for me and your willingness to be advised by me. It is the belief of many that you will see me in Ireland no more. But if I should live till spring, I shall endeavor to visit Dublin at the usual time, about the end of March. [He arrived in Dublin for his last visit on March 29, 1789.] If then you have a real regard for me, see that your preaching-house [In Whitefriar Street. See letter of June 16.] be enlarged without delay. Forward the building that it may be ready when I come. Do this, and I shall know that you have a love for, my dear Arthur, Your ever affectionate brother. My kind love attend Bella and all the little ones. To Lady Maxwell LONDON, August 8, 1788. MY DEAR LADY, -- It is certain many persons both in Scotland and England would be well pleased to have the same preachers always. But we cannot forsake the plan of acting which we have followed from the beginning. For fifty years God has been pleased to bless the itinerant plan, the last year most of all. It must not be altered till I am removed; and I hope will remain till our Lord comes to reign upon earth.

I do not know (unless it unfits us for the duties of life) that we can have too great a sensibility of human pain. Me-thinks I should be afraid of losing any degree of this sensibility. I had a son-in-law (now in Abraham's bosom) who quitted his profession, that of a surgeon, for that very reason; because he said it made him less sensible of human pain. [Was this Noah Vazeille] And I have known exceeding few persons who have carried this tenderness of spirit to excess. I recollect but one who was constrained to leave off in a great measure visiting the sick because he could not see any one in pain without fainting away. Mr. Charles Perronet was the first person I was acquainted with who was favored with the same experience as the Marquis De Renty ['I bear in me ordinarily an experimental verity and a plenitude of the most Holy Trinity, which exalts me to a simple view of God.' (Wesley's Extract of the Life of Monsieur De Renty). See letter of Oct. 3, 1731.] with regard to the ever-blessed Trinity, Miss Ritchie was the second, Miss Roe (now Mrs. Rogers) the third. I have as yet found but a few instances; so that this is not, as I was at first apt to suppose, the common privilege of all that are 'perfect in love.' [Compare letters of June 11 1777 (to Hannah Ball), and July 4, 2787, and Lady Maxwell's letters to Alexander Mather in her Life, pp. 359-61.] Pardon me, my dear friend, for my heart is tenderly concerned for you, if I mention one fear I have concerning you, lest, on conversing with some, you should be in any degree warped from Christian simplicity. O do not wish to hide that you are a Methodist! Surely it is best to appear just what you are. I believe you will receive this as a proof of the sincerity with which I am, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To Ann Bolton BRECON, August 15, 1788.

I have a work in hand that will give you pleasure: I have begun to write my brother's Life. [This work he never accomplished. He died before he had made much progress in collecting material. See Jackson's Charles Wesley, ii. 454; and letter of Sept. 26.] Now, in this you may assist me much. You knew as much of him as most people; and you have the pen of a ready witness. Set down everything you can recollect concerning him. I think between us we shall be able to make something out. You may set down everything you can think of; I can select such a portion as is most proper. You have now leisure for it and for doing good to any whom Providence delivers into your hands. Peace be with your spirit! -- I am, my dear Sally, Yours in tender affection. To Elizabeth Baker BRISTOL, September 16, 1788.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Thirty years ago we had thirty or forty preachers, the greater part of whom were truly devoted to God; but one or two of them departed from us, loving the present world. At present we have in Great Britain and Ireland about two hundred traveling preachers, and probably there are three or four of these whose hearts are not right with God; but we do not know it; we have no proof of this, or we should put them away. I do not know that Henry Brians has any gifts for preaching or any desire of it. Samuel Woods I do not remember at all. But in a few days I shall probably set out for Ireland. What becomes of James Wray [See letter of June 30, 1788, to John Mann.] Is he dead or alive I know not that I have had a letter from him for above this twelve months. What concerns me is that I cannot find any union between you northern preachers. John Hoskins, John McGeary, and John Stretton I should imagine would have all acted in concert; on the contrary, each seems to be afraid of the other. How is this What is the true ground of this shyness What objections have you to John Hoskins or John McGeary What objections have they to you 'Tis a pity but you had all spoken freely to Your affectionate brother. To George Holder LONDON, February 28, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You say, 'The last quarter, when we compared our plans with the Minutes of Conference, we wanted a considerable number of people whom Mr. Crook had given in to you.' I cannot understand this. Cannot Mr. Crook cast up a plain account And surely neither he, nor you, nor any preacher would willfully give in a false account. [Holder had followed John Crook as Assistant in the Isle of Man. See letter of June 24.]

Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Richard Rodda BRISTOL, March 11, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I hope to be with you on Good Friday between one and two o'clock. Then you dispose of me as you see best till Easter Monday in the afternoon; but that day I am to dine with Sir Philip Gibbes at Hilton Park. The Assistant has need in most places to have a strict eye to the leaders; but they are nothing in the Methodist constitution, but single men who are employed by the Assistant as long and as far as he pleases. The account of good Sarah Ward is remarkable. -- I am, dear Richard, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Rodda, In Moore Street, Birmingham. To Mrs. Bowman BRISTOL, March 14, 1789. I have neither time nor inclination to enter into a long dispute on this or any other question. [See letter of March 4, 1786.] All I can do is, first to declare my own judgment, and then set down my reasons for it; and if your son is not satisfied therewith, I do not know any way to help it. The judgment is that there is no more harm in keeping an hot-house than a flower garden; and I judge there is no more sin in keeping a flower garden than in smelling a rose. My reason for judging both of these innocent is because neither of them is forbidden in Scripture, and it is sinful to condemn anything which Scripture does not condemn. I think, therefore, to condemn all who keep hot-houses and flower gardens is a sin both against God and their neighbors; and one of them might say, 'Why am I judged of another man's conscience To my own Master I stand or fall.' I am Your affectionate brother. To Certain Persons in Dublin [15] WHITEFRIAR STRERT, DUBLIN, March 31, 1789. MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- I much approve of the manner and spirit wherein you write concerning these tender points. I explained myself upon them in some measure on Sunday; I will do it more fully now.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It was affirmed to me that you gave one of the first occasions of disagreement by 'refusing to read the Prayers and speaking contemptuously of them.' Conversing with so many Presbyterians in Scotland might easily lead you into such a prejudice. I have lying by me a very warm letter from one Edward Thomas, who seems ready to swallow up all that speak a word against Lawrence Kane. [Kane was Assistant at Plymouth. Thomas acknowledged his faults, and was restored to the Society. See letters of June 9 and Aug. 29.] I hear nothing from Nehemiah Janes. You are blamed for not preaching as often as you can; I hope there is no ground for this charge. [See letter of July 23, 1788.] Take care your own spirit is not sharpened! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Surer, At the Preaching-house, In Plymouth Dock. To Walter Churchey CLONES, May 25, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am afraid of delay. I doubt we shall not be able to be as good as our word, although in the last proposals I have protracted the time of delivery till the 1st of August. As you are not a stripling, I wonder you have not yet learned the difference between promise and performance. [See letters of May 4 and Aug. 26.] I allow at least five-and-twenty per cent.; and from this conviction I say to each of my subscribers (which, indeed, you cannot so decently say to yours), 'Sir, down with your money.' I know Dr. [Ogilvie] well [Probably Dr. John Ogilvie, an extract from whose poem 'Solitude, or The Elysium of the Poets,' in favor of Ossian, appears in Churchey's volume.]: he is a lovely man, and an excellent poet. I commend you for inoculating the children. I believe the hand of God is in our present work; therefore it must prosper. Indeed, I love Sister Churchey; and am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Wride SIDARE, May 28, 1789.

MY DEAR SISTER, -- I know not what to do or what to say. This untoward man so perplexes me It is not my business to find houses for the preachers' wives. I do not take it upon me. I did not order him to come to Burslem. I only permitted what I could not help. I must leave our brethren to compromise these matters among themselves. They are too hard for me. A preacher is wanted in Gloucester circuit. One of them may go thither. -- I am, with love to Brother Warwick, [Someone has written across the letter, To Mrs. Warwick concerning Michael Moorhouse. See letter of July 7, 1786.] my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To the Methodist People [8] BRISTOL. September 11, 1789. 1. When, about fifty years ago, one and another young man offered to serve me as sons in the gospel, it was on these terms, that they would labor where I appointed; otherwise we should have stood in each other's way. Here began itinerant preaching with us. But we were not the first itinerant preachers in England. Twelve were appointed by Queen Elizabeth to travel continually, in order to spread true religion through the kingdom; and the office and salary still continue, though their work is little attended to. Mr. Miller, late Vicar of Chipping in Lancashire, was one of them. 2. As the number of preachers increased it grew more and more difficult to fix the places where each should labor from time to time. I have often wished to transfer this work of stationing the preachers once a year to one or more of themselves. But none were willing to accept of it. So I must bear the burden till my warfare shall be accomplished.

My DEAR SISTER, -- To hear from you is always a pleasure to me; though it is a pleasure mixed with concern when I hear of your weakness or sickness. Only I know the Lord loveth whom He chasteneth. But of what kind is your illness Perhaps I might be enabled to tell you how to remove it. And if you can recover your health, you ought; for health is a great blessing. In August last my strength failed almost at once, and my sight in a great measure went from me. But all is well: I can still write almost as easily as ever, and I can read in a clear fight; and I think, if I could not read or write at all, I could still say something for God. [See letter of July 3 to Mr. Heath.] When you have more strength, tell me more of the work of God, whether in yourself or those round about you. And ought you not to let me know if you are in any temporal distress For everything that concerns you, concerns, my dear Jenny, Yours most affectionately. First addressed-- To Mrs. Jane Cock, St. Heller, Isle of Jersey. Then-- To Mrs. Jane Cock, St. Maws, Cornwall. To Peard Dickinson [20] DURHAM, June 12, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am exceedingly pleased that you have made a little tour to Portsmouth and the adjoining places; and cannot doubt but it has been a blessing to many there as well as to your own soul. I seem to remember that I had a letter from you some time since; but I do not remember whether I answered it or not. If the good impressions which Sammy Wesley frequently feels could be changed, he would probably be a real Christian. You should contrive to see him as often as you can. Who knows but you may save a soul alive. [See letter of April 28 to Sarah Wesley.] To take a little journey (were it but for a week) now and then would be of service both to your mind and body. -- I am, with kind love to Betsy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To William Black [21] SUNDERLAND, June 14, 1790.

DEAR SIR, -- The proposal concerning a lecture for the instruction of the preachers, full counsel must mature. If I live to return to London, we may then consider it at large. When we meet we may talk largely on the subject, and weigh what may be said for and against it. I have often advised those who wrote me accounts of lives and deaths, 'Write enough; I can shorten your accounts as I please.' Few people know what part of this is material. You and I must determine this. Do not scruple to speak to Mr. Dickinson concerning the funerals, which I will confirm in due time. And speak twice or thrice in public of coming punctually at the time; telling 'otherwise we will not stay for you.' Mr. Peacock [John Peacock in the Grimsby Circuit.] may have what books he pleases either for himself or for the poor. Peace be with you and yours! I hope to be at Bristol on Saturday; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Rev. Mr. Creighton, At the New Chapel, Moorfields, London. To Joseph Burgess [8] BRISTOL, August 22, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You are called to do all the good you can for the present in Ireland. Your staying there a little longer may be a blessing to many souls. I believe we can easily procure another preacher to supply your place at Liverpool for a month or two; so you need be in no pain upon that account. A little difficulty in setting out is a good omen. Wishing all happiness to you and yours, I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Jasper Winscom BRISTOL, August 28, 1790. DEAR JASPER, -- I do not see how you can be spared from your own circuit till another is procured to take your place. [Winstom had been Assistant in the Isle of Wight, and was now appointed to Oxfordshire.] Neither do I conceive how Sarum Circuit can bear the expense of another preacher. I am wellnigh tired of it. I have had more trouble with this circuit than with ten circuits besides. You did exceeding well in adjusting matters at Whitchurch; but I am sorry for poor Sister Haime. [John Haime, Wesley's soldier preacher, died at Whirchurch on Aug. 18, 1784. See letter in March 1744 to him.] I am sure she was a good woman once.

“For till we have learned from those sacred records” (I use your own words) “what they were, and in what manner exerted by the Apostles, we cannot form a proper judgment of those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church; and must consequently dispute at random, as chance or preju dice may prompt us, about things unknown to us.” (Page 11.) Now, Sir, if this be true, (as without doubt it is,) then it necessarily follows, that, seeing from the beginning of your book to the end, you spend not one page to inform either yourself or your readers concerning the nature of these miraculous powers, “as they are represented to us in the history of the gospel;” you dispute throughout the whole “atrandom, as chance or prejudice prompts you, about things unknown to you.” 8. Your reply to “the adversaries of your scheme,” (pages 15-27,) I may let alone for the present; and the rather, because the arguments used therein will occur again and again Only I would here take notice of one assertion, “that the miraculous powers conferred on the Apostles themselves were imparted just at the moment of their exertion, and withdrawn again as soon as those particular occasions were served.” (Page 23.) You should not have asserted this, be it true or false, without some stronger proof. “This, I say, is evident,” (Ibid.,) is not a sufficient proof; nor, “A treatise is prepared on that subject.” (Page 24.) Neither is it proved by that comment of Grotius on our Lord's promise,” which, literally translated, runs thus: “To every believer there was then given some wonderful power, which was to exert itself, not indeed always, but when there was occasion.” 9. But waving this, I grant “the single point in dispute is, whether the testimony of the Fathers be a sufficient ground to believe, that miraculous gifts subsisted at all after the days of the Apostles.” (Page 27.) But with this you interweave another question, whether the Fathers were not all fools or knaves. In treating of which, you strongly intimate, -First, that such gifts did never subsist; and, Secondly, that the Apostles were equally wise and good with the “wonder workers” (your favourite term) that followed them.

13. You go on to acquaint us with the excellences of your performance. “The reader,” you say, “will find in these sheets none of those arts which are commonly employed by disputants to perplex a good cause, or to palliate a bad one; no subtile refinements, forced constructions, or evasive dis tinctions; but plain reasoning, grounded on plain facts, and published with an honest and disinterested view to free the minds of men from an inveterate imposture. I have shown that the ancient Fathers, by whom that delusion was imposed, were extremely credulous and superstitious; possessed with strong prejudices, and scrupling no art or means by which they might propagate the same.” (Page 31.) Surely, Sir, you add the latter part of this paragraph, on purpose to confute the former; for just here you use one of the unfairest arts which the most dishonest disputant can employ, in endeavouring to forestall the judgment of the reader, and to prejudice him against those men on whom he ought not to pass any sentence before he has heard the evidence. 1. In the beginning of your “Introductory Discourse,” you declare the reasons which moved you to publish it. One of these, you say, was the late increase of Popery in this kingdom; (page 41;) chiefly occasioned, as you suppose, by the confident assertions of the Romish emissaries, that there has been a succession of miracles in their Church from the apostolic to the present age. To obviate this plea, you would “settle some rule of discerning the true from the false; so as to give a reason for admitting the miracles of one age, and rejecting those of another.” (Page 44.) 2. This has a pleasing sound, and is extremely well imagined to prejudice a Protestant reader in your favour.

10. You say, Thirdly, “The later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier, but more learning and less credulity. If these, then, be found either to have forged miracles them selves, or propagated what they knew to be forged, or to have been deluded by the forgeries of others, it must excite the same suspicion of their predecessors.” (Page 85.) I answer, (1.) It is not plain that the later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier: Nor, (2.) That they had less credulity. It seems, some of them had much more: Witness Hilarion’s camel, and smelling a devil or a sinner; though even he was not so quick scented as St. Pachomius, who (as many believe to this day) could “smell a heretic at a mile’s distance.” (Free Inquiry, pages 89,90.) But if, (3.) The earlier Fathers were holier than the later, they were not only less likely to delude others, but (even on Plato's supposition) to be deluded themselves: For they would have more assistance from God. 11. But you say, Fourthly, “The earlier ages of the Church were not purer than the later. Nay, in some respects they were worse. For there never was any age in which so many rank heresies were professed, or so many spurious books forged and published, under the names of Christ and his Apostles; several of which are cited by the most eminent Fathers of those ages, as of equal authority with the Scriptures. And none can doubt but those who would forge, or make use of forged books, would make use of forged miracles.” (Introd. Disc., pages 86, 87.) I answer, (1.) It is allowed that before the end of the third century the Church was greatly degenerated from its first purity. Yet I doubt not, (2.) But abundantly more rank heresies have been publicly professed in many later ages; but they were not publicly protested against, and therefore historians did not record them. (3.) You cannot but know it has always been the judgment of learned men, (which you are at liberty to refute if you are able,) that the far greater part of those spurious books have been forged by heretics; and that many more were compiled by weak, well-meaning men, from what had been orally delivered down from the Apostles.

Do the very men to whom you refer, Origen and Arnobius, in the very tracts to which you refer, give no other answer than this argument ad hominem? Stand this as another genuine proof of Dr. Middleton’s candour and impartiality | 14. A further proof of your “frank and open nature,” and of your “contenting yourself with the discharge of your own conscience, by a free declaration of your real sentiments,” (page 40,) I find in the very next page. Here you solemnly declare: “Christianity is confirmed by the evidence of such miracles as, of all others on record, are the least liable to excep tion, and carry the clearest marks of their sincerity; being wrought by Christ and his Apostles for an end so great, so 14 LETTER. To important, as to be highly worthy the interposition of the Deity; wrought by mean and simple men, and delivered by eye-witnesses, whose characters exclude the suspicion of fraud.” (Page 94.) Sir, do you believe one word of what you so solemnly declare? You have yourself declared the contrary. But if you do not, where shall we have you? Or how can we believe you another time? How shall we know, I will not say, when you speak truth, but when you would have us think you do? By what criterion shall we distinguish between what is spoken in your real, and what in your personated, character? how discern when you speak as Dr. Middleton, and when as the public librarian? 15. You go on: “By granting the Romanists but a single age of miracles after the Apostles, we shall be entangled in difficulties, whence we can never extricate ourselves till we allow the same powers to the present age.” (Page 96.) I will allow them, however, three ages of miracles, and let them make what advantage of it they can. You proceed: “If the Scriptures are a complete rule,” (I reject the word sufficient, because it is ambiguous,) “we do not want the Fathers as guides, or, if clear, as interpreters. An esteem for them has carried many into dangerous errors; the neglect of them can have no ill consequences.” (Page 97.) I answer, (1.) The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice; and they are clear in all necessary points.

I want the proof. Though I am but one of the vulgar, yet I am not half so credulous as you apprehend the first Christians to have been. Ipse diri will not satisfy me; I want plain, clear, logical proof; especially when I consider how much you build upon this; that it is the main foundation whereon your hypothesis stands. You yourself must allow, that in the Epistles of St. Paul, wys, wariza Xapiapata, spiri tual gifts, does always mean more than faith, hope, and charity; that it constantly means miraculous gifts. How then do you prove, that, in the Epistles of St. Ignatius, it means quite another thing? not miraculous gifts, but only the ordinary gifts and graces of the gospel? I thought “the reader” was to “find no evasive distinctions in the following sheets.” (Preface, p. 31.) Prove then that this distinction is not evasive; that the same words mean absolutely different things. Till this is clearly and solidly done, reasonable men must believe that this and the like expressions mean the same thing in the writings of the apostolical Fathers as they do in the writings of the Apostles; namely, not the ordinary graces of the gospel, but the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. 3. You aim indeed at a proof, which would be home to the point, if you were but able to make it out. “These Fathers themselves seem to disclaim all gifts of a more extraordinary kind. Thus Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, says, “Neither I, nor any other such as I am, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed Paul.” And in the same Epistle he declares, ‘It was not granted to him to practise that, Be ye angry, and sin not.’ St. Ignatius also, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, says, “These things I prescribe to you, not as if I were somebody extraordinary. For though I am bound for his name, I am not yet perfect in Christ Jesus.” (Pages 7, 8.) I think verily, these extraordinary proofs may stand without any reply. 4.

6. I was a little surprised that you should take your leave of the apostolic Fathers so soon. But, upon looking forward, my surprise was at an end: I found you was not guilty of any design to spare them; but only delayed your remarks till the reader should be prepared for what might have shocked him, had it stood in its proper place. I do not find, indeed, that you make any objection to any part of the Epistles of Ignatius; no, nor of the Catholic Epistle, as it is called, which is inscribed with the name of Barnabas. This clearly convinces me, you have not read it; I am apt to think, not one page of it; seeing, if you had, you would never 20 LETTER. To have let slip such an opportunity of exposing one that was called an apostolic Father. 7. But it would have been strange, if you had not somewhere brought in the famous phoenix of Clemens Romanus. And yet you are very merciful upon that head, barely remarking con cerning it, that “he alleged the ridiculous story of the phoenix, as atype and proof of the resurrection. Whether all the heathen writers treat it as nothing else but a mere fable, I know not.” (Page 55.) But that it is so, is certain; and consequently the argument drawn from it is weak and inconclusive. Yet it will not hence follow, either that Clemens was a wicked man, or that he had none of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. 8. There is no real blemish to be found in the whole character of St. Polycarp. But there is one circumstance left upon record concerning him which has the appearance of weakness. And with this you do not fail to acquaint your reader at a convenient season; namely, “that in the most ancient dispute concerning the time of holding Easter, St. Polycarp and Anicetus severally alleged apostolic tradition for their different practice.” (Page 60.) And it is not improbable,. that both alleged what was true; that in a point of so little importance the Apostles varied themselves; some of them observing it on the fourteenth day of the moon, and others not.

For if you say, “The writers following the apostolic Fathers do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts; therefore they had none;” by a parity of reason you must say, “The writers following the Apostles do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts; therefore the Apostles had none.” 4. Your next argument against the existence of those gifts is, “that the Fathers do not tell us the names of them which had them.” This is not altogether true. The names of Justin Martyr and Cyprian are pretty well known; as is, among the learned, that of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. (Pages 106, 212.) But what, if they did not? Supposing miraculous powers were openly exerted in the Church, and that not only they themselves, but every oine else, might see this whenever they pleased; if any Heathen might come and see whenever he pleased, what could a reasonable man desire more? What did it signify to him to know the names of those whom he heard prophesying, or saw working miracles? Though, without doubt, whoever saw the miracles wrought, might easily learn the names of those that wrought them : which, nevertheless, the Christians had no need to publish abroad, to expose them so much the more to the rage and malice of their persecutors. 6. Your third argument is, “The Christian workers of mira cles were always charged with imposture by their adversaries. Lucian tells us, “Whenever any crafty juggler went to the Christians, he grew rich immediately.’ And Celsus represents the Christian wonder-workers as mere vagabonds and common cheats, who ranmbled about to fairs and markets.” (Page 23.) And is it any wonder, that either a Jew or a Heathen should represent them thus? Sir, I do not blame you for not believing the Christian system, but for betraying so gross a partiality; for gleaning up every scrap of heathen scandal, and palming it upon us as unquestionable evidence; and for not translating even these miserable fragments with any accuracy or faithful ness. Instead of giving us the text, bad as it is, you commonly substitute a paraphrase yet worse. And this the unlearned reader naturally supposes to be a faithful translation. It is no credit to your cause, if it needs such supports. And this is no credit to you, if it does not.

10. “These things,” you add, “are so strange, as to give just reason to suspect that there was some original fraud in the case, and that those strolling wonder-workers, by a dexterity of juggling, imposed upon the pious Fathers, whose strong prejudices, and ardent zeal for the interest of Christianity, would dispose them to embrace, without examination, what ever seemed to promote so good a cause.” (Page 25.) You now speak tolerably plain, and would be much disappointed if those who have no “strong prejudices for Christianity” did not apply what you say of these “strolling wonder-workers” to the Apostles, as well as their successors. 11. A very short answer will suffice: “These things are so strange.” They are more strange than true. You have not proved one jot or tittle of them yet. Therefore, the conse quences you draw must fall to the ground till you find them some better support. 12. Nay, but “it is certain and notorious,” you say, “that this was really the case in some instances;” that is, that “strolling, juggling wonder-workers imposed upon the pious Fathers.” (Page 26.) Sir, I must come in again with my cuckoo's note,--The proof! Where is the proof! Till this is produced I cannot allow that “this is certain and notorious,” even in one individual instance. 13. Let us now stand still, and observe what it is you have made out, under this Second head. What you proposed was, “to throw together all which the primitive Fathers had delivered concerning the persons said to be then endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.” And how have * Adjicient multa de autoritate cujusque doctoris hasretici, illos mortuos susci ‘asse, debiles reformasse, &c. you executed what you proposed? You have thrown together a quotation from a Jew, two from Heathens, three quarters of a line from Origen, and three lines from Tertullian | Nothing at all, it is true, to the point in question. But that you could not help. 14. And this, it seems, is “all you have been able to draw from any of the primitive writers, concerning the persons who were endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost!” (Page 21.) Permit me, Sir, to apply to you what was spoken on another occasion: “Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with ; ” neither sufficient skill, nor industry and appli cation.

2. Th E REV. D.R. MIDDLETON. 31 It is by this principle only that I can account for your adding: “Which doctrine” (that of their enjoying all sensual pleasures) “he deduces from the testimony of the Prophets, and of St. John the Apostle; and was followed in it by the Fathers of the second and third centuries.” The doctrine (as you very well know) which Justin deduced from the Prophets and the Apostles, and in which he was undoubtedly followed by the Fathers of the second and third centuries, is this: The souls of them who have been martyred for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who have not worshipped the beast, neither received his mark, shall live and reign with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead shall not live again, until the thousand years are finished. Now, to say they believed this, is neither more nor less than to say, they believed the Bible. 6. The second heresy you charge him with is the believing, “that those ‘sons of God’ mentioned Gen. vi. 4, of whom it is there said, ‘They came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them,’ were evil angels.” (Page 32.) And I allow, he too lightly received this on the testimony of the Jewish Commentators. But this only proves that he was a fallible man; not that he was a knave, or that he had not eyes and ears. 7. You charge him, Thirdly, “with treating the spurious books, published under the names of the Sibyl and Hystaspes, with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures.” (Page 33.) His words are: “By the power of evil spirits, it was made death to read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl, or of the Prophets.” Well; how does this prove that he treated those books with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures? “But it is certain,” you say, “that, from this example and authority of Justin, they were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and Rulers of the Church, through all succeeding ages.” (Ibid.) I do not conceive it is certain. I wait your proof, first, of the fact; next, of the reason you assign for it.

I wait your proof, first, of the fact; next, of the reason you assign for it. The fact itself, that “these books were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and Rulers through all succeeding ages,” is in nowise proved by that single quotation from Clemens Alex 32 LETTER. To andrinus, wherein he urges the Heathens with the testimonies of their own authors, of the Sibyl, and of Hystaspes. (Page 34.) We cannot infer from hence that he himself held them “in the highest veneration; ” much less that all the Fathers did. And as to the reason you assign for that veneration,--the example and authority of Justin,--you cite no writer of any kind, good or bad. So he that will believe it, may. But some, you tell us, “impute the forging these books to Justin.” Be pleased to tell us, likewise, who those are; and what grounds they allege for that imputation. Till them, it can be of no signification. 8. You charge him, Fourthly, “with believing that silly story concerning the Septuagint version of the Old Testa ment; with saying, that he himself, when at Alexandria, saw the remains of the cells in which the translators were shut up; and with making a considerable mistake in the chronology relating thereto.” (Page 37.) And if all this be allowed, and, over and above, that he “frequently cites apocryphal books, and cites the Scriptures by memory;” what have you gained toward the proof of your grand conclusion, that “he was either too great a fool, or too great a knave, to be believed touching a plain matter of fact?” 9. You seem sensible of this, and therefore add, Fifthly: “It will be said, perhaps, that these instances show a weak ness of judgment, but do not touch the credit of Justin as a witness of fact.” (Page 29.) But can you scrape up nothing from all the dunghills of antiquity that does? I dare say, you will do your utmost. And, first, you reply, “The want of judgment alone may, in some cases, disqualify a man from being a good witness. Thus, Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells.

Thus, Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells. And so he was by those who told him, there was a statue at Rome, inscribed, Simoni Deo Sancto; whereas it was really inscribed, Semoni Sanco Deo; to an old deity of the Sabines. Now,” say you, “if he was deceived in such obvious facts, how much more easily would he be deceived by subtle and crafty impostors!” (Pages 40, 41.) Far less easily. A man of good judgment may be deceived in the inscriptions of statues, and points of ancient history. But, if he has only eyes and ears, and a small degree of common sense, he cannot be deceived in facts where he is both an eye and ear witness. 10. For a parting blow, you endeavour to prove, Sixthly, that Justin was a knave, as well as a fool. To this end you remark, that “he charges the Jews with erasing three passages out of the Greek Bible; one whereof stands there still, and the other two were not expunged by some Jew, but added by some Christian. Nay, that able critic and Divine, John Croius,” (you know when to bestow honourable appel lations,) “says Justin forged and published this passage for the confirmation of the Christian doctrine, as well as the greatest part of the Sibylline oracles, and the sentences of Mercurius.” (Page 42.) With far greater probability than John Croius asserts that Justin forged these passages, a man of candour would hope that he read them in his copy (though incorrect) of the Greek Bible. And till you disprove this, or prove the assertion of Croius, you are got not a jot farther still. But, notwith standing you have taken true pains to blacken him, both with regard to his morals and understanding, he may still be an honest man, and an unexceptionable witness, as to plain facts done before his face. 11. You fall upon Irenaeus next, and carefully enumerate all the mistakes in his writings. As, First, that he held the doctrine of the millennium, and related a weak fancy of Tapias concerning it. Secondly: That he believed our Saviour to have lived fifty years. Thirdly: That he believed Enoch and Elias were translated, and St. Paul caught up to that very paradise from which Adam was expelled.

13, 14.) 22. You have now finished the third thing you proposed; which was, “to show the particular characters of the several Fathers, who attest” that they were eye and ear witnesses of the extraordinary gifts in the primitive Church. You named nine of these : Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theo philus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius; at the same time observing, that many other writers attest the same thing. But let the others stand by. Are these good men and true? That is the present question. You say, “No; ” and to prove that these nine are knaves, bring several charges against two of them. These have been answered at large: Some of them proved to be false; some, though true, yet not invalidating their evidence. But supposing we wave the evidence of these two, here are seven more still to come. O, but you say, “If there were twice seven, they only repeat the words which these have taught them.” You say; but how often must you be reminded, that saying and proving are two things? I grant, in three or four opinions, some (though not all) of these were mistaken, as well as those two. But this by no means proves that they were all knaves together; or that if Justin Martyr or Irenaeus speaks wrong, I am therefore to give no credit to the evidence of Theophilus or Minutius Felix. 23. You have therefore made a more lame piece of work on this head, if possible, than on the preceding. You have promised great things, and performed just nothing. You have left above three parts in four of your work entirely untouched; as these two are not a fourth part even of the writers you have named, as attesting the continuance of the “extraordinary gifts” after the age of the Apostles. But you have taught that trick at least to your “vagrant jugglers,” to supply the defect of all other arguments. At every dead lift you are sure to play upon us these dear creatures of your own imagination. They are the very strength of your battle, your tenth legion. Yet if a man impertinently calls for proof of their existence, if he comes close and engages them hand to hand, they immediately vanish away. IV.

Of this you seem not insensible already, and therefore fly away to your favourite supposition, that “they were not cured at all; that the whole matter was a cheat from the beginning to the end.” But by what arguments do you evince this? The first is, “The Heathens pretended to do the same.” Nay, and “managed the imposture with so much art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it; but insisted always that it was performed by demons, or evil spirits.” (Ibid.) But still the Heathens maintained, “the cures were wrought by their gods, by AEsculapius in parti cular.” And where is the difference? seeing, as was observed before, “the gods of the Heathens were but devils.” 3. But you say, “Although public monuments were erected in proof and memory of these cures, at the time when they were.performed, yet it is certain all those heathen miracles were pure forgeries.” (Page 79.) How is it certain? If you can swallow this without good proof, you are far more cre dulous than I. I cannot believe that the whole body of the Heathens, for so many generations, were utterly destitute of common sense, any more than of common honesty. Why should you fix such a charge on whole cities and countries? You could have done no more, if they had been Christians! 4. But “diseases, though fatal and desperate, are oft sur prisingly healed of themselves.” And therefore “we cannot pay any great regard to such stories, unless we knew more pre cisely in this case the real bounds between nature and miracle.” (Ibid.) Sir, I understand you well. The drift of the argu ment is easily seen. It points at the Master, as well as his servants; and tends to prove that, after all this talk about miraculous cures, we are not sure there were ever any in the world. But it will do no harm. For, although we grant, (1.) That some recover, even in seemingly desperate cases; and, (2.) That we do not know, in any case, the precise bounds between nature and miracle; yet it does not follow, Therefore I cannot be assured there ever was a miracle of healing in the world.

For, although we grant, (1.) That some recover, even in seemingly desperate cases; and, (2.) That we do not know, in any case, the precise bounds between nature and miracle; yet it does not follow, Therefore I cannot be assured there ever was a miracle of healing in the world. To explain this by instance: I do not precisely know how far nature may go in healing, that is, restoring sight to, the blind; yet this I assuredly know, that if a man born blind is restored to sight by a word, this is not nature, but miracle. And to such a story, well attested, all reasonable men will pay the highest regard. 5. The sum of what you have advanced on this head, is, (1.) That the Heathens themselves had miraculous cures among them. (2.) That oil may cure some diseases by its natural efficacy. And, (3.) That we do not know the precise bounds of nature. All this I allow. But all this will not prove that no miraculous cures were performed, either by our Lord and his Apostles, or by those who lived in the three succeeding centuries. Section III. 1. The Third of the miraculous powers said to have been in the primitive Church, is that of casting out devils. The testimonies concerning this are out of number, and as plain as words can make them. To show, therefore, that all these signify nothing, and that there were never any devils cast out at all, neither by the Apostles, nor since the Apostles, (for the argument proves both or neither,) is a task worthy of you. And, to give you your just praise, you have here put forth all your strength. 2. And yet I cannot but apprehend, there was a much shorter way. Would it not have been readier to overthrow all those testimonies at a stroke, by proving, there never was any devil in the world? Then the whole affair of casting him out had been at an end.

4. However, “Not one of these Fathers made any scruple of using the hyperbolical style,” (that is, in plain English, of lying,) “as an eminent writer of ecclesiastical history declares.” (Ibid.) You should have said, an impartial writer. For who would scruple that character to Mr. Le Clerc? And yet I cannot take either his or your bare word for this. Be pleased to produce a little proof. Hitherto you have proved absolutely nothing on the head; but, as your manner is, taken all for granted. 5. You next relate that famous story from Tertullian: “A woman went to the theatre, and returned possessed with a devil. When the unclean spirit was asked how he dared to assault a Christian, he answered, ‘I found her on my own ground.’” (Ibid.) After relating another, which you endeavour to account for naturally, you intimate that this was a mere lie of Tertullian's. But how is that proved? Why, “Tertullian was an utter enemy to plays and public shows in the theatre.” He was so: But can we infer from thence that he was an utter enemy to common honesty? 6. You add: “The Fathers themselves own that even the Jews, yea, and the Heathens, cast out devils. Now, it will be granted, that these Jewish and Heathen exorcists were mere cheats and impostors. But the Fathers believed they really cast them out. Now, if they could take their tricks for the effects of a supernatural power, well might they be deceived by their own impostors. Or they might think it convenient to oppose one cheat to another.” (Pages 84, 87, 88.) Deceived, say you, by their own impostors ? Why, I thought they were the very men who set them to work! who opposed one cheat to another! Apt scholars, who acted their part so well, as even to deceive their masters! But, whatever the Heathen were, we cannot grant that all the “Jewish exorcists were impostors.” Whether the Heathens cast out devils or not, it is sure the sons of the Jews cast them out. I mean, upon supposition, that Jesus of Nazareth cast them out; which is a point not here to be disputed. 7.

11. You observe, Fourthly, “that great numbers of demoniacs subsisted in those early ages, whose chief habita stion was in a part of the church, where, as in a kind of hospital, they were under the care of the exorcists; which will account for the confidence of those challenges made to the Heathens by the Christians, to come and see how they could drive the devils out of them, while they kept such numbers of them in constant pay; always ready for the show; tried and disciplined by your exorcists to groan and howl, and give proper answers to all questions.” (Pages 94, 95.) So now the correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist is grown more close than ever! But the misfortune is, this observation, likewise, wholly overthrows that which went before it. For if all the groaning and howling, and other symptoms, were no more than what they “were disciplined to by their exorcists;” (page 95;) then it cannot be, that “many of them could not possibly be cured by all the power of those exorcists 1” (Page 92.) What! could they not possibly be taught to know their masters; and when to end, as well as to begin, the show? One would think that the cures wrought upon these might have been more than temporary. Nay, it is surprising, that, while they had such numbers of them, they should ever suffer the same person to show twice. 12. You observe, Fifthly, “that, whereas this power of casting out devils had hitherto been in the hands only of the meaner part of the laity;” (that wants proof;) “it was, about the year 367, put under the direction of the Clergy; it being then decreed by the Council of Laodicea, that none should be exorcists but those appointed (or ordained) by the Bishop. But no sooner was this done, even by those who favoured and desired to support it, than the gift itself gradually decreased and expired.” (Page 95.) 46 LETTER. To You here overthrow, not only your immediately preceding observation, (as usual,) but likewise what you have observed elsewhere,--that the exorcists began to be ordained “about the middle of the third century.” (Page 86.) If so, what need of decreeing it now, above an hundred years after?

3. You say, Fourthly, “Montanus and his associates were the authors of these trances. They first raised this spirit of enthusiasm in the Church, and acquired great credit by their visions and ecstasies.” Sir, you forget; they did not “raise this spirit,” but rather Joel and St. Peter; according to whose words, the “young men saw visions,” before Montanus was born. 4. You observe, Fifthly, how Tertullian was “imposed upon by the craft of ecstatic visionaries,” (page 99,) and then fall upon Cyprian with all your might: Your objections to whom we shall now consider:-- And, First, you lay it down as a postulatum, that he was “fond of power and episcopal authority.” (Page 101.) I cannot grant this, Sir: I must have some proof; else this, and all you infer from it, will go for nothing. You say, Secondly, “In all questionable points of doctrine or discipline, which he had a mind to introduce into the Christian worship, we find him constantly appealing to the testimony of visions and divine revelations. Thus he says to Caecilius, that he was divinely admonished to mix water with wine in the sacrament, in order to render it effectual.” You set out unhappily enough. For this can never be a proof of Cyprian’s appealing to visions and revelations in order to introduce questionable points of doctrine or discipline into the Christian worship; because this point was unquestionable, and could not then be “introduced into the Christian wor ship,” having had a constant place therein, as you yourself have showed, (Introductory Discourse, p. 57) at least from the time of Justin Martyr. Indeed, neither Justin nor Cyprian use those words, “In order to render it effectual.” They are an ingenious and honest addition of your own, in order to make something out of nothing. 5. I observe you take much the same liberty in your next quotation from Cyprian. “He threatens,” you say, “to execute what he was ordered to do ‘against them in a vision.’” (Page 102.) Here also the last words, “in a vision,” are an improvement upon the text. Cyprian’s words are, “I will use that admonition which the Lord commands me to use.”* But neither was this in order to introduce any questionable point, either of doctrine or discipline; no more than his using the same threat to Pupianus, who had spoken ill of him and left his communion. 6.

The strength of your argument constantly lies in a loose and paraphrastical manner of translating. The strength of mine lies in translating all in the most close and literal manner; so that closeness of translation strengthens mine, in the same proportion as it weakens your arguments; a plain proof of what you elsewhere observe, that you use “no subtle refinements or forced constructions.” (Preface, p. 31.) * Necesse est, ercidat sensu. 15. But to return to Cyprian: “I cannot forbear,” you say, “relating two or three more of his wonderful stories. The first is, A man who had denied Christ was presently struck dumb: The second, A woman who had done so was seized by an unclean spirit, and soon after died in great anguish: The third, of which he says he was an eye-witness, is this,--The heathen Magistrates gave to a Christian infant part of what had been offered to an idol. When the Deacon forced the consecrated wine on this child, it was immediately seized with convulsions and vomiting; as was a woman who had apostatized, upon taking the conse crated elements.” (Pages 112, 113.) The other two relations Cyprian does not affirm of his own personal knowledge. “Now, what can we think,” say you, “of these strange stories, but that they were partly forged, partly dressed up in this tragical form, to support the discipline of the Church in these times of danger and trial?” (Page 115.) Why, many will think that some of them are true, even in the manner they are related; and that if any of them are not, Cyprian thought they were, and related them in the sincerity of his heart. Nay, perhaps some will think that the wisdom of God might, “in those times of danger and trial,” work things of this kind, for that very end, “to support the dis cipline of the Church.” And till you show the falsehood, or at least the improbability, of this, Cyprian's character stands untainted; not only as a man of sense, (which you yourself allow,) but likewise of eminent integrity; and consequently it is beyond dispute, that visions, the fifth miraculous gift, remained in the Church after the days of the Apostles. Section V. 1. The sixth of the miraculous gifts which you enumerated above, namely, “the discernment of spirits,” you just name, and then entirely pass over.

For there may be many reasons in the depth of the wisdom of God, for his doing many things at various times and places, either by his natural or supernatural power, which were never recorded at all. And abundantly more were recorded once, and that with the fullest evidence, whereof, nevertheless, we find no certain evidence now, at the distance of fourteen hundred years. 6. Perhaps this may obtain in the very case before us. Many may have spoken with new tongues, of whom this is not recorded; at least, the records are lost in a course of so many years: Nay, it is not only possible that it may be so, but it is absolutely certain that it is so; and you yourself must acknow ledge it; for you acknowledge that the Apostles, when in strange countries, spoke with strange tongues; that St. John, for instance, when in Asia Minor, St. Peter, when in Italy, (if he was really there,) and the other Apostles, when in other countries, in Parthia, Media, Phrygia, Pamphylia, spoke each to the natives of each, in their own tongues, the wonderful works of God. And yet there is no authentic record of this: There is not in all history, one well-attested instance of any particular Apostle's exercising this gift in any country what soever. Now, Sir, if your axiom were allowed, what would be the consequence? Even that the Apostles themselves no more spoke with tongues than any of their successors. 7. I need, therefore, take no trouble about your subsequent reasonings, seeing they are built upon such a foundation. Only I must observe an historical mistake which occurs toward the bottom of your next page. Since the Reformation, you say, “This gift has never once been heard of, or pretended to, by the Romanists themselves.” (Page 122.) But has it been pretended to (whether justly or not) by no others, though not by the Romanists? Has it “never once been heard of” 56 LETTER. To since that time? Sir, your memory fails you again: It has undoubtedly been pretended to, and that at no great distance either from our time or country. It has been heard of more than once, no farther off than the valleys of Dauphiny.

15. “I have now,” you say, “thrown together all which I had collected for the support of my argument;” (page 187;) after a lame recapitulation of which you add with an air of triumph and satisfaction: “I wish the Fathers the ablest advocates which Popery itself can afford; for Protestantism, I am sure, can supply none whom they would choose to retain in their cause; none who can defend them without contradicting their own profession and disgracing their own character; or produce anything, but what deserves to be laughed at, rather than answered.” (Pages 188, 189.) Might it not be well, Sir, not to be quite so sure yet? You may not always have the laugh on your side. You are not yet infallibly assured, but that even Protestantism may produce something worth an answer. There may be some Protestants, for aught you know, who have a few grains of common sense left, and may find a way to defend, at least the Ante-Nicene Fathers, without “disgracing their own character.” Even such an one as I have faintly attempted this, although I neither have, nor expect to have, any preferment, not even to be a Lambeth Chaplain; which if Dr. Middleton is not, it is not his own fault.- V. l. The last thing you proposed was, “to refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.” To what you have offered on this head, I must likewise attempt a short reply. You say, “It is objected, First, that by the character I have given of the Fathers, the authority of the books of the New Testament, which were transmitted to us through their hands, will be rendered precarious and uncertain.” (Page 190.) After a feint of confuting it, you frankly acknowledge the whole of this objection. “I may venture,” you say, “to declare, that if this objection be true, it cannot hurt my argument. For if it be natural and necessary, that the craft and credulity of witnesses should always detract from the credit of their testimony, then who can help it? And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.” (Page 192.) “If it be proved !” Very true.

But hold. You are going to prove it too: “For,” say you, “should the like case happen now, that any Methodist, Moravian, or French prophet,” (right skilfully put together,) “should publish an apology for his brethren, addressed to the King and Parliament; is it not wholly improbable, that the Government would pay any regard to it?” You should add, (to make the parallel complete,) “ or know that any such was addressed to them.” No: I conceive the improbability supposed lies wholly on the other side. Whatever the Government of heathen Rome was, (which I presume you will not depreciate,) the Govern ment of England is remarkable for tenderness to the very meanest subject. It is therefore not improbable in the least, that an address from some thousands of those subjects, how contemptible soever they were generally esteemed, would not be totally disregarded by such a Government. But that they should “not know that any such had been addressed to them,” is not only improbable, but morally impossible. If therefore it were possible for the Heathens to “have a worse opinion of the ancient Christians than we,” you say, “have of our modern fanatics,” still it is utterly incredible that the Roman Government should, not only “take no notice of their apologies,” but “not even know that any such were addressed to them.” 4. “But the publishing books was more expensive then than it is now; and therefore we cannot think the Christians of those days were able to provide such a number of them as was sufficient for the information of the public.” (Pages 198, 199.) Nay, if they were not able to provide themselves food and raiment, they would be sure to provide a sufficient number of these; sufficient, at least, for the information of the Emperor and Senate, to whom those apologies were addressed. And how great a number, do you suppose, might suffice for them? How many hundred or thousand copies? I apprehend the Emperor would be content with one; and one more would be needful for the Senate. Now, I really believe the Christians of those days were able to provide both these copies; nay, and even two more; if it should have fallen out, that two or three Emperors were on the throne; even though we should suppose that in Tertullian’s time there were but forty thousand of them in all Rome. 62 LETTER.

The point of your argument is, “If you cannot believe these, then you ought not to believe the Bible: The incredibility of the things related ought to overrule all testimony whatsoever.” Your argument, at length, would run thus: “If things be incredible in themselves, then this incredibi lity ought to overrule all testimony concerning them. “But the gospel miracles are incredible in themselves.” Sir, that proposition I deny. You have not proved it yet. You have only now and then, as it were by the by, made any attempt to prove it. And till this is done, you have done nothing, with all the pother that you have made. 14. You reserve the home stroke for the last : “There is hardly a miracle said to be wrought in the primitive times, but what is said to be performed in our days. But all these modern pretensions we ascribe to their true cause,--the craft of a few, playing upon the credulity of the many, for private interest. When, therefore, we read of the same things done by the ancients, and for the same ends of acquiring wealth, credit, or power; how can we possibly hesitate to impute them to the same cause of fraud and imposture?” (Page 230.) The reason of our hesitation is this: They did not answer the same ends. The modern Clergy of Rome do acquire credit and wealth by their pretended miracles. But the ancient Clergy acquired nothing by their miracles, but to be “afflicted, destitute, tormented.” The one gain all things thereby; the others lost all things. And this, we think, makes some differ ence. “Even unto this present hour,” says one of them, (writing to those who could easily confute him, if he spoke not the truth,) “we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat. We are become as the filth of the world, as the off scouring of all things unto this day.” (1 Cor. iv. 11--13.) Now, Sir, whatever be thought of the others, we apprehend, such Clergy as these, labouring thus, unto the death, for such credit and wealth, are not chargeable with fraud and imposture. THE REV. Dit. MIDDLETON, 67 VI. I have now finished what I had to say with regard to your book.

with all his wisdom and philosophy, . What points of knowledge did he gain * That life is sacred all,--and vain : Sacred, how high, and vain, how low, [e could not tell; but died to know. 9. “He died to know !” and so must you, unless you are now a partaker of Christian faith. O consider this ! Nay, and consider, not only how little you know of the immensity of the things that are beyond sense and time, but how uncer tainly do you know even that little ! How faintly glimmering a light is that you have ! Can you properly be said to know any of these things? Is that knowledge any more than bare conjecture? And the reason is plain. You have no senses suitable to invisible or eternal objects. What desiderata then, especially to the rational, the reflecting, part of man kind are these? A more extensive knowledge of things invisible and eternal; a greater certainty in whatever know ledge of them we have; and, in order to both, faculties capable of discerning things invisible. 10. Is it not so? Let impartial reason speak. Does not every thinking man want a window, not so much in his neighbour's, as in his own, breast? He wants an opening there, of whatever kind, that might let in light from eternity. He is pained to be thus feeling after God so darkly, so uncertainly; to know so little of God, and indeed so little of any beside material objects. He is concerned, that he must see even that little, not directly, but in the dim, sullied glass * of sense; and consequently so imperfectly and obscurely, that it is all a mere enigma still. 11. Now, these very desiderata faith supplies. It gives a more extensive knowledge of things invisible, showing what eye had not seen, nor ear heard, neither could it before enter into our heart to conceive. And all these it shows in the clear est light, with the fullest certainty and evidence. For it does not leave us to receive our notices of them by mere reflection from the dull glass of sense; but resolves a thousand enigmas of the highest concern by giving faculties suited to things invisible.

For it does not leave us to receive our notices of them by mere reflection from the dull glass of sense; but resolves a thousand enigmas of the highest concern by giving faculties suited to things invisible. O who would not wish for such a faith, were it only on these accounts How much more, if by this I may receive the promise, I may attain all that holiness and happiness ! 12. So Christianity tells me; and so I find it, may every real Christian say. I now am assured that these things are so: I experience them in my own breast. What Christianity (considered as a doctrine) promised, is accomplished in my soul. And Christianity, considered as an inward principle, is the completion of all those promises. It is holiness and hap piness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit; a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life. Section III. 1. And this I conceive to be the strongest evidence of the truth of Christianity. I do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree. And yet I cannot set it on a level with this. It is generally supposed, that traditional evidence is weak ened by length of time; as it must necessarily pass through so many hands, in a continued succession of ages. But no length of time can possibly affect the strength of this internal evidence. It is equally strong, equally new, through the course of seventeen hundred years. It passes now, even as it has done from the beginning, directly from God into the believing soul. Do you suppose time will ever, dry up this stream ? O no ! It shall never be cut off: Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis avum.* 2. Traditional evidence is of an extremely complicated nature, necessarily including so many and so various consi derations, that only men of a strong and clear understanding can be sensible of its full force. On the contrary, how plain * It flows on, and will for ever flow. 76 LETTER. To and simple is this; and how level to the lowest capacity!

To and simple is this; and how level to the lowest capacity! Is not this the sum : “One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see?” An argument so plain, that a peasant, a woman, a child, may feel all its force. 3. The traditional evidence of Christianity stands, as it were, a great way off; and therefore, although it speaks loud and clear, yet makes a less lively impression. It gives us an account of what was transacted long ago, in far distant times as well as places. Whereas the inward evidence is intimately present to all persons, at all times, and in all places. It is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, if thou believest in the Lord Jesus Christ. “This,” then, “is the record,” this is the evidence, emphatically so called, “that God hath given unto us eternal life; and this life is in his Son.” 4. If then, it were possible (which I conceive it is not) to shake the traditional evidence of Christianity, still he that has the internal evidence (and every true believer hath the witness or evidence in himself) would stand firm and unshaken. Still he could say to those who were striking at the external evidence, “Beat on the sack of Anaxagoras.” But you can no more hurt my evidence of Christianity, than the tyrant could hurt the spirit of that wise man. 5. I have sometimes been almost inclined to believe, that the wisdom of God has, in most later ages, permitted the external evidence of Christianity to be more or less clogged and incumbered for this very end, that men (of reflection especially) might not altogether rest there, but be constrained to look into themselves also, and attend to the light shining in their hearts. Nay, it seems (if it may be allowed for us to pry so far into the reasons of the divine dispensations) that, particularly in this age, God suffers all kind of objections to be raised against the traditional evidence of Christianity, that men of understanding, though unwilling to give it up, yet, at the same time they defend this evidence, may not rest the whole strength of their cause thereon, but seek a deeper and firmer support for it. 6.

Reason, rally, laugh them out of their dead, empty forms, void of spirit, of faith, of love. Convince them, that such mean pageantry (for such it manifestly is, if there is nothing in the heart correspondent with the outward show) is absolutely unworthy, you need not say of God, but even of any man that is endued with common understanding. Show them, that while they are endeavouring to please God thus, they are only beating the air. Know your time; press on; push your victories, till you have conquered all that know not God. And then He, whom neither they nor you know now, shall rise and gird himself with strength, and go forth in his almighty love, and sweetly conquer you all together. 9. O that the time were come ! How do I long for you to be partakers of the exceeding great and precious promise ! 78 LETTER. To How am I pained when I hear any of you using those silly terms, which the men of form have taught you, calling the mention of the only thing you want, cant 1 the deepest wisdom, the highest happiness, enthusiasm What ignorance is this ! How extremely despicable would it make you in the eyes of any but a Christian | But he cannot despise you, who loves you as his own soul, who is ready to lay down his life for your sake. 10. Perhaps you will say, “But this internal evidence of Christianity affects only those in whom the promise is fulfilled. It is no evidence to me.” There is truth in this objection. It does affect them chiefly, but it does not affect them only. It cannot, in the nature of things, be so strong an evidence to others as it is to them. And yet it may bring a degree of evidence, it may reflect some light on you also. For, First, you see the beauty and loveliness of Christianity, when it is rightly understood; and you are sure there is nothing to be desired in comparison of it. Secondly. You know the Scripture promises this, and says, it is attained by faith, and by no other way. Thirdly. You see clearly how desirable Christian faith is, even on account of its own intrinsic value. Fourthly. You are a witness, that the holiness and happiness above described can be attained no other way.

You are a witness, that the holiness and happiness above described can be attained no other way. The more you have laboured after virtue and happiness, the more convinced you are of this. Thus far then you need not lean upon other men; thus far you have personal experience. Fifthly. What reasonable assurance can you have of things whereof you have not personal experience? Suppose the question were, Can the blind be restored to sight? This you have not yourself experienced. How then will you know that such a thing ever was? Can there be an easier or surer way than to talk with one or some number of men who were blind, but are now restored to sight? They cannot be deceived as to the fact in question; the nature of the thing leaves no room for this. And if they are honest men, (which you may learn from other circumstances,) they will not deceive you. Now, transfer this to the case before us: And those who were blind, but now see, -those who were sick many years, but now are healed,--those who were miserable, but now are happy, -will afford you also a very strong evidence of the truth of Christianity; as strong as can be in the nature of things, till you experience it in your own soul: And this, though it be allowed they are but plain men, and, in general, of weak understanding; nay, though some of them should be mistaken in other points, and hold opinions which cannot be defended. 11. All this may be allowed concerning the primitive Fathers', I mean particularly Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian; to whom I would add Macarius and Ephraim Syrus. I allow that some of these had not strong natural sense, that few of them had much learning, and none the assistances which our age enjoys in some respects above all that went before. Hence I doubt not but whoever will be at the pains of reading over their writings for that poor end, will find many mistakes, many weak suppositions, and many ill-drawn conclusions. 12. And yet I exceedingly reverence them, as well as their writings, and esteem them very highly in love. I reverence them, because they were Christians, such Christians as are above described.

I HAvE read a Tract lately sent me, and will now give my free thoughts upon the subject. I set out early in life with an utter abhorrence of persecu tion in every form, and a full conviction that every man has a right to worship God according to his own conscience. Accordingly, more than fifty years ago, I preached on those words, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of: For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And I preached on the same text, in London, the 5th of last November. And this I extend to members of the Church of Rome, as well as to all other men. I agree not only that many of these in former ages were good men, (as Thomas à Kempis, Francis Sales, and the Mar quis de Renty,) but that many of them are so at this day. I believe, I know some Roman Catholics who sincerely love both God and their neighbour, and who steadily endeavour to do unto every one as they wish him to do unto them. But I cannot say this is a general case; nay, I am fully convinced it is not. The generality of Roman Catholics, wherever I have been, are of the same principles, and the same spirit, with their forefathers. And, indeed, if they had the same principles, it could not be doubted but they would be of the same practice too, if opportunity should serve. These principles openly avowed by their forefathers of priestly absolution, Papal indulgences, and no faith to be kept with heretics, have never been openly and authoritatively disavowed even unto this day. And until they are, a Roman Catholic, consistent with his principles, cannot be trusted by a Protestant. For the same principles naturally tend to produce the same spirit and the same practice. Very lately, a person seeing many flocking to a place, which she did not know was a Romish chapel, innocently said, “What do all these people want?” and was answered by one of them, with great vehe mence, “We want your blood. And we will have it soon.” On Friday last, I dined with a gentlewoman, whose father, living in Dublin, was very intimate with a Roman Catholic gentleman. Having invited him to dinner one day, in the course of conversation, Mrs.

“1. Seeing the height of all happiness is placed in the true knowledge of God, the right understanding of this is what is most necessary to be known in the first place. “2. It is by the Spirit alone that the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be, revealed. And these revela tions, which are absolutely necessary for the building up of true faith, neither do, nor can, ever contradict right reason or the testimony of the Scriptures.” Thus far there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. 178 LETTER. To A PERSON “Yet these revelations are not to be subjected to the examination of the Scriptures as to a touchstone.” Here there is a difference. The Scriptures are the touch stone whereby Christians examine all, real or supposed, revelations. In all cases they appeal “to the law and to the testimony,” and try every spirit thereby. “3. From these revelations of the Spirit of God to the saints, have proceeded the Scriptures of truth.” In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. “Yet the Scriptures are not the principal ground of all truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners. Nevertheless, they are a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit. By Him the saints are led into all truth. Therefore the Spirit is the first and principal leader.” If by these words, “The Scriptures are not the principal ground of truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners,” be only meant, that “the Spirit is our first and principal leader;” here is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. But there is great impropriety of expression. For though the Spirit is our principal leader, yet He is not our rule at all; the Scriptures are the rule whereby he leads us into all truth. Therefore, only talk good English; call the Spirit our guide, which signifies an intelligent being, and the Scriptures our rule, which signifies something used by an intelligent being, and all is plain and clear. “4. All mankind is fallen and dead, deprived of the sen sation of this inward testimony of God, and subject to the power and nature of the devil, while they abide in their natural state. And hence not only their words and deeds, but all their imaginations, are evil perpetually in the sight of God. “5.

“But Joel foretold, ‘Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.’ And ‘Philip had four daughters which prophe sied.’ And the Apostle himself directs women to prophesy; only with their heads covered.” Very good. But how do you prove that prophesying in any of these places means preaching? “11. All true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of his own Spirit. We ought not to pray or preach where and when we will, but where and when we are moved thereto by his Spirit. All other worship, both praises, prayers, and preachings, which man sets about in his own will, and at his own appointment, which he can begin and end at pleasure, do or leave undone, as himself sees meet, are but superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatries.” Here lies one of the main differences between Quakerism and Christianity. It is true indeed, that “all true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of his own Spirit;” or, (to speak plain,) that we cannot truly worship God, unless his Spirit move or incline our hearts. It is equally true, that “we ought to pray and preach, only where and when we are moved thereto by his Spirit; ” but I fear you do not in anywise understand what the being “moved by his Spirit” means. God moves man, whom he has made a reasonable creature, according to the reason which he has given him. He moves him by his understanding, as well as his affections; by light, as well as by heat. He moves him to do this or that by conviction, full as often as by desire. Accordingly, you are as really “moved by the Spirit” when he convinces you you ought to feed him that is hungry, as when he gives you ever so strong an impulse, desire, or inclination so to do. In like manner, you are as really moved by the Spirit to pray, whether it be in public or private, when you have a conviction it is the will of God you should, as when you have the strongest impulse upon your heart.

Many writers have done marvellously; but thou excellest them all ! For forty or fifty years I have been a little acquainted with controversial writers; some of the Romish persuasion, some of our own Church, some Dis senters of various denominations: And I have found many among them as angry as him; but one so bitter I have not found: Or one only, the author of those “excellent Letters,” as Mr. H. styles them; which he particularly “admires,” (that is his word,) and the “whole spirit” of which he has drank in. This is his peculiar character, his distinguishing grace: As a writer, his name is Wormwood. Accordingly, he charges Mr. F. with a “severe, acrimonious spirit,” with “sneer, sarcasm, and banter,” yea, with “notorious falsehoods, calumny, and gross perversions.” (Page 2.) Nay, “I accuse you,” says he, “of the grossest perversions and misrepresenta tions that ever proceeded from any author's pen.” In the same spirit he is represented as “a slanderer of God’s people and Ministers, descending to the meanest quibbles, with a bitter, railing, acrimonious spirit;” (page 21;) and, page 27, to go no farther, as “using stratagem and ungenerous artifices:” Although “I have treated you,” says Mr. H., “with all the politeness of a gentleman, and the humility of a Christian.” Amazing! And has he not treated me so too? At present, take but one or two instances: “Forgeries have long passed for no crime with Mr. Wesley.” (Page 27.) “He administers falsehoods and damnable heresies, rank poison, hemlock, and ratsbane. We cannot allow him any other title than that of an empiric or quack-doctor.” (Page 29.) Which shall we admire most here,--the gentleman or the Christian? MR. HILL's REVIEw. 377 4. There is something extremely odd in this whole affair. A man falls upon another, and gives him a good beating; who, in order to be revenged, does not grapple with him, (perhaps sensible that he is above his match,) but, giving him two or three kicks, falls upon a third man that was standing by. “O,” says he, “but I know that fellow well; he is the second of him that beat me.”--“If he is, dispatch your business with the former first, and then turn to him.” However, if Mr. H. is resolved to fall upon me, I must defend myself as well as I can. 5.

5. From the spirit and manner wherein he writes, let us now proceed to the matter. But that is so various, and scattered up and down for an hundred and fifty pages, without much order or connexion, that it is difficult to know where to begin. However, all tends to one point; the good design of the writer is, to blacken. With this laudable view, he observes the old rule, “Throw dirt enough, and some will stick:” Knowing that the mud may be thrown in a trice; but it will take time and pains to scrape it off. Indeed, he takes true pains to fasten it on; to represent Mr. W. as a knave and a fool; a man of no conscience, and no under standing. It is true, the latter is insisted on most at large: By an hundred instances Mr. H. has made it plain to all the world, that Mr. W. never had three grains of common sense; that he is the veriest weathercock that ever was; that he has not wit enough to be fixed in anything, but is “tossed to and fro continually;” “that he is to this very moment so absolutely unsettled with regard to every fundamental doc trine of the gospel, that no two disputants in the Schools can be more opposite to each other than he is to himself.” 6. But some may naturally ask, “What is the matter? What makes Mr. H. so warm? What has Mr. W. done, that this gentleman, this Christian, ita gladiatorio animo ad eum affectat viam P* that he falls upon him thus outrageously, dagger out of sheath, without either rhyme or reason?” “O, the matter is plain. Beside that he is Mr. F.'s friend, he is an Arminian; and nothing is bad enough for an Arminian.” “An Arminian | What is that?” “I cannot tell exactly; but to be sure it is all that is bad. For a Popish friar, a Benedictine monk, bears witness, (and Mr. H. avers * This accommodated quotation from Terence is thus rendered by Colman : “Growing desperate, and making towards him With a determined gladiatorial air.”--EDIT. the same,) that the tenets of the Church of Rome are nearer by half to Calvinism than to Arminianism; nearer by half to Mr. H.’s tenets than to Mr. W.’s.” “Truly, I always thought so.

Bernard or Ambrose, we must consult the authors themselves, and tell our readers what edition we use, with the page where the words are found; otherwise they cannot form a judgment either of the fairness of the quota tion, or of the sense and weight of it. Hitherto, then, we have not one tittle of proof, that this is a Popish doctrine; that it ever was, or is now, “almost generally received in the Church of Rome;” (although, if it had, this would be no conclusive argument against it, as neither is it conclusive against the doctrine of the blessed Trinity;) I do not know that it ever was: But this I know; it has been solemnly condemned by the Church of Rome. It has been condemned by the Pope and his whole conclave, even in this present century. In the famous bull Unigenitus, (so called from the first words, Unigenitus Dei filius,') they utterly condemn the uninterrupted act (of faith and love, which some then talked of, of continually rejoicing, praying, and giving thanks) as dreadful heresy Now, in what public act of the Church of Rome is the doctrine of perfection maintained? Till this is produced, I pray let us hear no more, that perfection is a Popish doctrine. 25. However, “the distinction between sins and innocent infirmities is derived from the Romish Church.” (Page 56.) How does this appear? Thus: “Two of her devoted cham pions, Lindenus and Andradius, distinguish between infirmi ties and sins.” Lindenus and Andradius / Who are they? From what country did they come? I do not know the men. One of them, for aught I know, might serve as an interpreter at the Council of Trent? What then? Was he an autho rized interpreter of the doctrines of the Church? Nay, and how do you know that they did speak of “little, trifling faults,” or of “minute and trivial sins?” Did you ever read them? Pray, what edition of their works do you use? and in what page do these words occur? Till we know this, that there may be an opportunity of examining the books, (though I fear scarce worth examining,) it is doing too much honour to such quotations, to take any notice of them at all. 26. Well, now for the buskins !

Well, now for the buskins ! Now, spirat tragicum satis '+ “And this is the doctrine which is preached to more than thirty thousand souls, of which Mr. W. has the charge. Then I am sure it is high time, that not only the Calvinist Ministers, but all that wish well to the interest of Protestantism,” (so Mr. S. said before,) “should, in a body, protest against such licentious tenets.” “Blow ye the trumpet in Sion l’” Gird on your armour ! Make ye your selves ready for battle ! Again the trumpet sounds:--A * The only-begotten Son of God.-ED 1 T. + This quotation from Horace is thus translated by Francis : “It breathes the spirit of the tragic scene.”--ED1T. MR. HILL's REVIEw. 409 crusadel An holy war! Down with the heretics! But hold ! What spirit are you of ? Are you followers of peace? Then “bring forth your strong reasons; speak the truth in love,” and we are ready to meet you. But really all this talk of my licentious doctrine is a mere copy of Mr. H.’s countenance. He knows, and all in England know, (whoever have heard my name,) that it is not too loose, but too strict, doctrine I am constantly accused of. Therefore, all this bluster, about my superseding the law, has not only no truth, but no colour, no plausibility. And when Mr. H. calls so gravely for Dr. Crisp to “sweep away all my Antinomian rubbish,” shall we laugh or weep? Cuivis facilis rigidi censura cachinni.* Rather let us drop a tear on human infirmity. 27. So much for the First grand argument against perfec tion, that it is “generally received in the Church of Rome.” The Second is: “It was generally received among the ranting Anabaptists in Germany.” (Page 49.) What author of note testifies this? I allow no second-hand authority; but desire to know what German historian of credit has recorded it; and in what page of his works. When this is ascertained, then we may observe, it proves just nothing. A Third argument against perfection is, that “it was main tained by many wild Ranters in London.” Wild enough ! although no stress is to be laid on Mr. H.’s informations concerning them; some of which are altogether false, and the rest imperfect enough. But suppose they were all true, what would follow?

to use what had before thrown him into the palsy ?” I did not say so. I never had the palsy yet; though my hand shook, which is a “paralytic disorder.” But be it strange or not, so Dr. F. advised; if you believe not me, you may inquire of himself. The low wit that follows, I do not meddle with ; I leave it with the gentle reader. * O rare Wesleyan Logic teacher.--EDIT. He who is clear in making distinctions is an able fARRAGO DOUBLE-DISTILLED. 437 Of Baptism. 38. “Mr. W. says, “As there is no clear proof for dip ping in Scripture, so there is very probable proof to the contrary.’ “Why then did you at Savannah baptize all children by immersion, unless the parents certified they were weak?” (Farrago, p. 42.) I answered: “Not because I had any scruple, but in obedience to the Rubric.” Mr. H., according to custom, repeats the objection, without taking the least notice of the answer. As to the story of half drowning Mrs. L. S., let her aver it to my face, and I shall say more. Only observe, Mr. Toplady is not “my friend.” He is all your own; your friend, ally, and fellow soldier:-- Ut non Compositus melius cum Bitho Bacchius ! * You are in truth, duo fulmina belli.t. It is not strange if their thunder should quite drown the sound of my “poor pop-guns.” 39. “But what surpasses everything else is, that Mr. W. cannot even speak of his contradictions, without contradicting himself afresh. For he absolutely denies, not only that he ever was unsettled in his principles, but that he was ever accused of being so, either by friends or foes.” (Pages 39, 40.) Either by friends or foes / I will rest the whole cause upon this. If this be true, I am out of my wits. If it be false, what is Mr. Hill? An honest, upright, sensible man; but a little too warm, and therefore not seeing so clearly in this as in other things. My words are: “My friends have oftener accused me of being too stiff in my opinions, than too flexible. My enemies have accused me of both, and of everything besides.” (Remarks, p.

So, although you have got the gallows ready, you have not turned off old Mordecai yet. As you so frequently give me that appellation, I for once accept of your favour. 48. “Before I quit this subject,” (of perfection,) “I cannot help expressing my astonishment, that Mr. Wesley should deny that his tenets on that point exactly harmonize with those of the Popish Church; since all the decrees and books that have been published by the Roman Clergy prove this matter beyond a doubt.” I believe you have been told so. But you should not assert it, unless from personal knowledge. “Alexander Ross says so.” What is Alexander Ross? See with your own eyes. “Mr. Hervey too gives an account of Lindenus and Andradius.” Second-hand evidence still. Have you seen them yourself? Otherwise, you ought not to allow their testimony. As to that “most excellent and evangelical work,” as you term it, the Eleven Letters ascribed to Mr. Hervey, Mr. Sellon has abundantly shown, that they are most excellently virulent, scurrilous, and abusive; and full as far from the evangelical spirit, as the Koran of Mahomet. “But Bishop Cowper”--I object to him, beside his being a hot, bitter Calvinist, that he is a dull, heavy, shallow writer. And let him be what he may, all you cite from him is but second-hand authority. “Nay, I refer to the Bishop's own FARRAGo Dou BLE-DISTILLED. 443 words.” But still, you have only the words at second-hand. In order to know the tenets of the Church of Rome, you must read the Romish authors themselves. Nay, it does not suffice to read their own private authors. They will disown anything we charge them with, unless we can prove it by recurring to their public and authentic records. Such are the “Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini.” Such the “Catechismus ad Parochos.” Till you have read these at least, you should never undertake to determine what is, or what is not, Popery. 49. “But as I am now on the subject of Popery, I must make a few animadversions on what Mr. Wesley affirms, ‘I always thought the tenets of the Church of Rome were nearer by half to Mr. Hill's tenets, than to Mr. Wesley’s.” (Page 33.) Nay, give the honour of this to its true author: Mr.

Wesley’s.” (Page 33.) Nay, give the honour of this to its true author: Mr. Hill goes to consult a Popish Friar at Paris, a Benedictine Monk, one Father Walsh, concerning the Minutes of the Conference. Father Walsh (Mr. Hill says; and I see no reason to scruple his authority here) assures him that the Minutes contain false doctrine; and that the tenets of the Church of Rome are nearer by half to his (Mr. Hill's) tenets than they are to Mr. Wesley's. (So Mr. Hill himself informs the world, in the Paris Conversation, of famous memory, which I really think he would never have published, unless, as the vulgar say, the devil had owed him a shame.) I add, “Truly, I always thought so.” But I am the more confirmed therein, by the authority of so competent a judge; especially when his judg ment is publicly delivered by so unexceptionable a witness. 50. Nay, but “you know, the principles of the Pope and of John Calvin are quite opposite to each other.” I do not know that they are opposite at all in this point. Many Popes have been either Dominicans or Benedictines: And many of the Benedictines, with all the Dominicans, are as firm Predestinarians as Calvin himself. Whether the present Pope is a Dominican, I cannot tell: If he is, he is far nearer your tenets than mine. Let us make the trial with regard to your ten propositions:-- (1) “You deny election.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” I know not that. Probably he holds it. (2.) “You deny persever- “So does the Pope of ance.” Rome.” That is much to be doubted. 444 REMARKs on MR. HILL’s (3) “You deny imputed righteousness.” Perhaps the Pope of Rome does; but I assert it continu ally. (4) “You hold free-will.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” No; not as I do ; (unless he is a Predestina rian: Otherwise,) he ascribes it to nature, I to grace. (5) “You hold that works If you mean good works, I are a condition of justifica do not. tion.” (6) “You hold a twofold justification; one now, another at the last day.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” And so do all Pro testants, if they believe the Bible. (7) “You hold the doctrine I do not. Neither does the of merit.” Pope, if Father Walsh says true.

“He is most marvellously curious in forbidding his Preachers to say, My Lady.” Were ever words so distorted and misrepresented ! The words in the Minutes are: “Do not imitate them (the Calvinists of Trevecka in particular) in screaming, allegorizing, calling themselves ordained, boasting themselves of their learning, the College, or My Lady.” (Page 12.) Is this “forbidding them to say, My Lady?” No more than forbidding them to make a bow. 12. “A vast number of sluts had taken possession of the preaching-houses,” (No; the preaching-houses were not in question,) “and female servants, by courtesy called maids,” (civil and kind ! But neither were servants in question,) “are * “Behold the token "-EDIT. 450 ANswer. To MR. RowLAND HILL’s filthy slovens in their persons, dress, and manoeuvres.” (See, Mr. Hill understands French !) “So Mr. John gives the public to understand.” (No, not Mr. John, but Mr. Hill. He goes on:) “And how is this mighty grievance to be redressed? ‘Why, says this Solomon in a cassock,” (Is not that witty?) “‘sluts are to be kept out, by not letting them in.’” (Imposture Detected, p. 12.) And is all this wit bestowed upon three poor lines? The words are just these:-- “Q. Complaint is made that sluts spoil our houses. How then can we prevent this? “A. Let no known slut live in any of them.” (Minutes.) What a colour does Mr. Hill put upon this ! But, meantime, where is conscience? Where is honour? 13. “He denies the doctrines of the Church of England;” (page 13;) that is, absolute predestination. Mr. Sellon has abundantly proved, that this is no doctrine of the Church of England. When Mr. Hill has answered his arguments, I will give him some more. The objections against lay Preachers (which come ill from Mr. Hill) I have largely answered in the “Third Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion.” But I know not that any lay Preachers in connexion with me, either baptize children, or administer the Lord’s supper. I never entreated anything of Bishop Erasmus, who had abundant unexceptionable credentials as to his episcopal character. Nor did he “ever reject any overture” made by me. (Page 14.) Herein Mr. Hill has been misinformed. I deny the fact; let him produce his evidence.

He made you for this very end,--to damn you; to cast you headlong into a lake of fire burning with brimstone ! This was prepared for you, or ever the world began | And for this you are now reserved in chains of darkness, till the decree brings forth; till, according to his eternal, unchange able, irresistible will, You groan, you howl, you writhe in waves of fire, And pour forth blasphemies at his desire! O God, how long shall this doctrine stand I BRETHREN AND FATHERs, LET it not be imputed to forwardness, vanity, or pre sumption, that one who is of little esteem in the Church takes upon him thus to address a body of people, to many of whom he owes the highest reverence. I owe a still higher regard to Him who I believe requires this at my hands; to the great Bishop of our souls; before whom both you and I must shortly give an account of our stewardship. It is a debt I owe to love, to real, disinterested affection, to declare what has long been the burden of my soul. And may the God of love enable you to read these lines in the same spirit wherewith they were wrote It will easily appear to an unprejudiced reader, that I do not speak from a spirit of anger or resentment. I know well, “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” Much less would I utter one word out of contempt; a spirit justly abhor red by God and man. Neither of these can consist with that earnest, tender love, which is the motive of my present undertaking. In this spirit I desire to cast my bread upon the waters; it is enough if I find it again after many days. Meantime, you are sensible, love does not forbid, but rather require, plainness of speech.

But, after all, there are some who, allowing the facts, deny the consequence; who still believe, and that after the most accurate inquiry, from such as have had the best means of information, that there are few noblemen or gentle men in the nation, (and we have many not inferior to most in Europe,) who have either so good a natural understanding, or so general a knowledge of all the valuable parts of learning. “But suppose something might be said for His Majesty's understanding, what can be said in excuse of his bad actions; as, First, his pardoning a murderer?” I really think some thing may be said on this head also. Can you or I believe that the King knew him to be such? understood him to be a wilful murderer? I am not sure of it at all; neither have you any rational proof, even supposing this to have been the case, which is far from being clear. And if he did not know or believe him to be such, how can he be blamed for pardon ing him ? Not to have pardoned him in this case would have been inexcusable before God and man. “But what can be said in excuse of his being governed by his mother, and fixing all his measures at Carlton-House?” It may be said, that if it was so, it is past, and so is no matter of present complaint. But who informed you that it was ? any eye and ear witness? “O, it is in every body's mouth.” Very well; but every body is nobody; so this proof is no proof at all. And what better proof have you, or any man, of his fixing any of his measures there? This has been affirmed an hundred times, but never was proved yet. “Nay, but is it not undeniable fact, that he spent hour after hour with her; and especially when he was hard pressed, and knew not which way to turn?” And what then ? Who loves him better than his parent? And whom has he a right to love better than her? Who is more faithful to him, more steadily desirous of his welfare? And whom can he trust better?

my sentiments on this motion. “I am sure, my Lords, many of you must remember, from your reading and experience, several persons expelled the House of Commons, without ever this House once pretending: to interfere or call in question by what authority they did so I remember several myself;” (here his Lordship quoted several cases;) “in all which, though most of the candidates were sure to be re-chosen, they never once applied, resting contented with the expulsatory power of the House, as the. only self-sufficient, dernier resort of application. “It has been echoed on all sides, from the partisans of this motion, that the House of Commons acted illegally, in accept ing Colonel Luttrel, who had but two hundred and ninety six votes, in preference to Mr. Wilkes, who had one thousand. one hundred and forty-three. But this is a mistake of the grossest nature imaginable, and which nothing but the intem-. perature of people's zeal could possibly transport them to, as Mr. Wilkes had been previously considered by the laws as an unqualified person to represent the people in Parliament;. therefore it appears very plainly, that Colonel Luttrel had a. very great majority, not less than two hundred and ninety six, Mr. Wilkes being considered as nobody in the eye of the law; consequently, Colonel Luttrel had no legal opposition. “In all contested elections, where one of the parties think themselves not legally treated, I should be glad to know to. whom it is they resort? Is it to the freeholders of the borough or the county they would represent? Or is it to the people at large? Who cannot see at once the absurdity of such a ques tion? Who so ignorant of our laws, that cannot immediately reply and say, ‘It is the House of Commons who are the only judges to determine every nicety of the laws of election; and from whom there is no appeal, after they have once given their determination?’ All the freeholder has to do is to determine on his object, by giving him his vote; the ultimate power lies. with the House of Commons, who is to judge of his being a legal object of representation in the several branches of his qualifications.

They were afraid of the timidity of others, and dreaded nothing more than that panic to which popular assemblies, as well as armies, are sometimes subject. The event has shown that their fears were groundless: The House supported its decisions against the current of popular prejudice; and, in defending their own judicial rights, secured the most solid part of the liberties of their constituents. “Their firm adherence to their Resolutions was not more noble than their concessions in the matter of their own rights was disinterested and generous. The extensive privileges which, in a series of ages, had accumulated to the members of both Houses, were certainly inconsistent with the impartial distri bution of justice. To sacrifice these privileges was not only diametrically opposite to the idea of self-interest, with which some asperse the Legislature, but it has also thrown a greater weight into the scale of public freedom than any other Act passed since the Revolution. And it has reflected honour on the present administration, that a bill, so very favourable to the liberty of the subject, was brought in and carried through by them. “The arbitrary manner of determining petitions about elections has been a serious complaint, and of long continu ance. I shall not deny to Mr. Grenville the merit of bringing in a bill for remedying this grievance; but its passing as it did is a certain proof that the pretended influence of admi mistration over a majority of the House is a mere bugbear, held forth for private views by the present opposition. “During the whole session, the House of Lords behaved with that dignity and unalterable firmness which became the first assembly in a great nation. Attacked with impertinent scurrility, they smiled upon rage, and treated the ravings of a despotic tribune with contempt. When, with an infamous perversion of his pretended love to freedom, he attempted to extend the control of the Peers to the resolutions of the representatives of the people, they nobly rejected the golden bait; and scorned to raise the dignity of their House upon the ruins of the other. They, in short, throughout the session, showed a spirit that disdained to be braved, a magnanimity that diminished their own personal power for the ease and comfort of the inferior subject.

And then she was illud quod dicere nolo 't One would think that even the ignobile vulgus, “the beasts of the people,” the lowest, basest herd who wore the human form, would be ashamed of either advancing or crediting so senseless, shame less a tale. Indeed I can hardly think it is credited by one in an hundred even of those who foul their mouths with repeating it. Let it die and be forgotten | Let it not be remembered that ever any Englishman took so dirty a slander into his mouth. * This was wrote before the Princess Dowager went abroad. + What I am reluctant to express.-EDIT. “However, become what will of his mother, let him put away his bad Ministers.” Suppose they really are bad, do you know where he can find better? Whore can he find twenty men, we will not say of Christian but of Roman integrity? Point them out, -men of sound judgment, of clear appre hension, of universal benevolence, lovers of mankind, lovers of their country, lovers of their King; men attached to no. party, but simply pursuing the general good of the nation; not haughty or overbearing, not addicted to passion, not of a revengeful temper; superior to covetousness on the one hand, free from profuseness on the other. I say, show me the men, only this small number; or rather, show them to His Majesty. Let clear and satisfactory proof be given that this is their character; and if these worthy men are not employed in the place of the unworthy ones, you will then have some reason to stretch your throat against evil Ministers. “But if the matter were wholly left to him, would not Lord immediately employ twenty such?” That may bear some doubt. It is not certain that he would; perhaps he knows not where to find them. And it is not certain to a demonstration, that he would employ them if he did. It is not altogether clear, that he is such himself, that he perfectly answers this character. Is he free from pride; from anything haughty in his temper, or overbearing in his behaviour? Is he neither passionate nor revengeful? Is it indisputably plain, that he is equally clear of covetousness on the one hand, and profuseness on the other? Is he steady and uniform in his conduct; always one thing?

will first despise and then abhor the King? What can we expect, but that by the repeated doses of this poison they will be perfectly intoxicated, and only wait for a con venient season to tear in pieces the royal monster, as they think him, and all his adherents? 25. At present there are hinderances in the way, so that they cannot use their teeth as they would. One is an untoward Parliament, who will not look upon the King with the same eyes that they do; but still think he has no more design or desire to enslave the nation, than to burn the city of London. A still greater hinderance is the army; even lions and bears do not choose to encounter them, so that these men of war do really at this time preserve the peace of ithe nation. What then can be done before the people cools, that this precious opportunity be not lost? What indeed, but to prevail upon the King to dissolve his Parliament and disband his army? Nay, let the Parliament stay as it is, it will suffice to disband the army. If these red-coats were but out of the way, the mob would soon deal with the Parliament. Probatum est: * Nothing is more easy than to keep malignant members from the House. Remember Lord North not long ago;t this was a taste, a specimen, of their activity. What then would they not do if they were masters of the field, if none were left to oppose them? Would not the * This has already been put to the proof-EDIT. + Rudely insulted by a turbulent mob, as he was going into the House. Titou GHTS UPON LIBERTY. 45. avenues of both Houses be so well guarded, that none but patriots would dare to approach? 26. But (as often as you have heard the contrary affirmed) King George has too much understanding, to throw himself into the hands of those men who have given full proof that they bear him no great good-will. Nor has he reason to believe that they are much more fond of his office than of his person. They are not vehemently fond of monarchy itself, whoever the Monarch be. Therefore neither their good nor ill words will induce him, in haste, to leap into the fire with his eyes open. 27.

No man, you aver, has any power over another but by his own consent. Of consequence, a law made without his consent is, with regard to him, null and void. You cannot say other wise without destroying the supposition, that none can be governed but by his own consent. 15. See, now, to what your argument comes. You affirm, all power is derived from the people; and presently excluded one half of the people from having any part or lot in the matter. At another stroke, suppose England to contain eight millions of people, you exclude one or two millions more. At a third, suppose two millions left, you exclude three-fourths of these. And the poor pittance that remains, by I know not what figure of speech, you call the people of England 16. Hitherto we have endeavoured to view this point in the mere light of reason. And even by this means it manifestly appears that this supposition, which is so high in vogue, which is so generally received, nay, which has been palmed upon us with such confidence, as undeniable and self-evident, is not only false, not only contrary to reason, but contradictory to itself; the very men who are most positive that the people are the source of power, being brought into an inextricable difficulty, by that single question, “Who are the people?” reduced to a necessity of either giving up the point, or owning that by the people they mean scarce a tenth part of them. 17. But we need not rest the matter entirely on reasoning; let us appeal to matter of fact. And because we cannot have so clear and certain a prospect of what is at too great a distance, whether of time or place, let us only take a view of what has been in our own country for six or seven hundred years. I ask, then, When and where did the people of England (even suppose by that word, the people, you mean only an inundred thousand of them) choose their own Governors? Did they choose, to go no farther, William the Conqueror? Did they choose King Stephen, or King John? As to those who regularly succeeded their fathers, it is plain the people are out of the question. Did they choose Henry the Fourth, Edward the Fourth, or Henry the Seventh? Who will be so hardy as to affirm it?

What if we had conquered France, ought we not still to have allowed them their own laws and religion? Yea, if the Russians had conquered Constantinople, or the whole Ottoman empire, ought they not to have allowed to all they conquered, both their own religion and their own laws; nay, and to have given them, not a precarious toleration, but a legal security for both? 49. “But the wild Indians, and their own slaves, have been instigated to attack them.” I doubt the fact. What proof is there of this, either with regard to the Indians or the Negroes? “And attempts have been made to gain the assistance of a large body of Russians.” Another hearty assertion, which many will swallow, without ever asking for proof: In truth, had any such attempts been made, they would not have proved ineffectual. Very small pay will induce a body of Russians to go wherever they hope for good plunder. It might just as well have been said, “Attempts were made to procure a large body of Tartars.” 50. Now for a little more encouragement to your good friends and allies in America: “The utmost force we can employ does not exceed thirty thousand men to conquer half a million of determined men, fighting for that sacred blessing of liberty, without which man is a beast, and government a curse.” (Page 95.) I am not sure that our utmost force is either thirty, or forty, or fifty, thousand men. But are you sure, that “half a million, at least, are determined to fight” against them? Yes: For “a quarter of the inhabitants of every country are fighting men; and the colonies consist of two millions.” Here are several points which are not quite clear. I doubt, (1.) Whether those colonies contain two millions. I doubt, (2.) Whether a quarter of the inhabitants of any country are fighting men: We usually reckon a sixth part. I doubt, (3.) Whether a quarter of the American fighting men, are determined to fight in so bad a cause; to fight, not for liberty, which they have long enjoyed, but for independency. Will you affirm, that “without this, man is a beast, and government a curse?” Then, show me where man is not a beast, and where government is not a curse. 51.

Ye salt of the earth, exert the seasoning, preserving quality which you are favoured with. Bring your contentious brethren in your loving arms of faith and prayer, and lay them at your Father's feet, praying him “to forgive them, as they know not what they do.” Look upwards for help, to Him “who doeth whatsoever pleases him in the armies of heaven, and amongst the sons of men;” knowing it is He alone that “can quench the violence of fire, still the raging of the sea, and the madness of the people.” Much, brethren, depends on you, though “the world account your life madness, and your end to be without honour;” for you are the true “salt of the carth;” you alone preserve it from general putrefaction; and you, under God, are the great means of saving a divided kingdom, “a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil doers;” and had not the Lord “left you as a small remnant,” we should long since “have been as Sodom and Gomorrah!” But do not you, for your Master’s sake, lose your favour in that unhallowed fire of contention, which the people who know not God are now burning in. The old serpent may herein deceive us, as he has too often done already. As an angel of light he is most likely to succeed, and, under the specious show of doing our country service, betray us, in treating our opponents, into a spirit and temper not from above. And how many may unhappily be influenced and led away with our error, God only knows | But this seems to be the design of the adversary of God and man; and if he can set the Christian world together by the ears, he has gained his point. But again, brethren, we may be deceived respecting the cause itself. Our veneration and respect for the cause we would espouse may betray us into a maze of error, imprudence, false zeal, and bitterness of temper; which must prove highly injurious to the public good. What has been, you know, may be again.

Let those who affirm we are on the brink of ruin show how greatly our agriculture is decreased since the happy days of 17591’’ 3. Again: Inquire, my friends, “In what respects and in what degree have any of our manufactures declined of late? Perhaps there is some decrease in a few branches, of weaving in particular. And this must be in the nature of things, while fashions are continually changing; so that a large demand for this or that commodity cannot be expected to continue long But is not this decrease in some branches amply compensated by the increase in others? Let it be more particularly inquired, Are the capital places less employed in manufactures, than they were in 1759? Are there fewer buildings now in use for the carrying on of great and extensive works? Are there fewer warehouses and magazines, and fewer machines and engines of every kind? How easily may you be convinced, that, in every one of these articles, far from a decrease, there is a very considerable increase, since the year 1759 | 4. “As to land and fresh-water carriage of goods, let any of you inquire, Are there fewer public waggons on the roads than there were formerly? And are there fewer roads fit for waggons to travel on? If so, our trade decreases. Are there fewer trows or barges employed on rivers and canals than there were heretofore? If there are, we allow the decrease of these is a sure sign of the decrease of trade. And, on the contrary, the vast increase of these proves a proportionable increase of it. ‘Are the rivers and canals fewer in these degenerate times than in the year 1759?’” See, my friends, by this plain, demonstrative proof, how sadly our trade is decreased ! And I cannot but observe, that arguments of this general kind are abundantly more conclusive than any which are or can be drawn from the case of particular persons. We always find a considerable number of these, both in London and elsewhere, who loudly complain of the decay of trade, and the hardness of the times. What does this mean? That “they themselves want business.” Perhaps they want industry too. But these particular cases are of no weight, opposed to those general considerations. 5. You may inquire next, with regard to “salt-water carriage of goods.

You may inquire next, with regard to “salt-water carriage of goods. Is the quantity of British shipping decreased since the year 1759? Are there fewer ships now employed in the ThE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. 145 coasting-trade? fewer in the Irish trade? or fewer for distant voyages? Nay, have we fewer ship-carpenters, or fewer sail makers at work? And do we build fewer or smaller ships for merchants’ service than formerly?” The more particu larly you inquire, the more clearly you will see how immensely the nation has improved in this article. But it is objected, “We have lost eight hundred of our ships since the beginning of the war.” Perhaps so; although you have no proof of this; for Lloyd's Catalogue is no sufficient evidence. But how many have we taken? This it is absolutely needful you should know, or you cannot know whether we have lost or gained upon the whole. We have taken above nine hundred. And the evidence of our gain is at least as good as that of our loss. “Nay, but we have also lost our Negro trade.” I would to God it may never be found more ! that we may never more steal and sell our brethren like beasts; never murder them by thousands and tens of thousands ! O may this worse than Mahometan, worse than Pagan, abomination, be removed from us for ever ! Never was anything such a reproach to England since it was a nation, as the having any hand in this execrable traffic. 6. “The state of our fisheries at home and abroad forms another important article of comparison. For as our ships of war are our bulwarks, and our sailors are the proper guards for defending such works, so it is of the utmost importance to have always ready, for manning our fleets, a number of able seamen. Now, these are most readily supplied by our fisheries. And when were these in their most flourishing state? in 1759, or 1777? Were more British ships employed in the fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, or in the gulf of St. Lawrence, or on the coasts of Labrador, then, than there are now 7 Were there half as many? Again: Were there more employed in the fisheries for whales, and fish to make oil? Were there even half as many?

“O, but the French will swallow us up.” They will as soon swallow up the sea. Pray, which way is it they are to come at us, unless they can fly through the air? It is certain our fleet, notwithstanding the shameless lies told to the contrary, is now everyway in a better condition than it ever was since England was a nation. And while we are indisputably masters at sea, what can the French do but gnash their teeth at us? “Nay, but Spain will join them.” That is by no means clear. They have not forgot the Havannah yet. But, if they do, we are well able to deal with them both; full as able as we were the last war. 7. “Yea, but Portugal too will declare against us.” I do not believe one word of it. The Portuguese (to say nothing about their gratitude) are not such arrant fools; they under stand their own interest better; they need no one to inform them, that if the English were only to stand neuter, the Spaniards would eat them up at a mouthful. They well know the present war will not last always; and, in the end, either England will prevail, or not. If it does not, if Spain prevail over England, England cannot defend Portugal. If England prevail over Spain, she will not. She will doubtless leave His Most Faithful Majesty to receive the reward he has so justly deserved from the fleet and army of his neighbour. 8. “But do not you know the French squadron is sailed to assist them, with four thousand soldiers on board?” I really do not, nor you neither; nor any man in Ireland. That they are sailed, I know; but not whether to Africa, or Asia, or America. But have they four thousand soldiers on board? And is that all? I heard they were twelve thousand. But in how many transports did they embark? We could not hear of one. Where then were the soldiers to be put? in the hold of the men-of-war, or on the shrouds? This story is not well devised; it manifestly confutes itself. But suppose twelve thousand are sailed, are they sure to land? Do they command the winds and seas? And, if they do, are they sure the English fleet will not speak with them by the way?

And, if they do, are they sure the English fleet will not speak with them by the way? If they escape these, are they sure of landing without opposi tion ? Is it certain that all our soldiers will stand meantime with their fingers in their mouth? How great then is the odds against the French ever joining the American army | Although, if they did, there is no doubt but General Howe would give a good account of them all. 9. “Why, to say the truth, we are not so much afraid of Portugal or Spain, yea, or of France itself, as we are of those intestine vipers, who are always ready to tear out their mother’s bowels. And how should we defend ourselves against these, if they made a general insurrection?” This is worth considering. It is certain, it is undoubtedly plain, it is beyond all contradic tion, if they gave a large dose of laudanum to all His Majesty’s liege subjects; if every man, woman, and child in the four pro vinces fell fast asleep all at once; if they all continued to sleep till the insurgents had brought their matters to bear in every city and town in the kingdom; if then the conspirators came all in the same hour, and cut off their heads at a stroke; the nation certainly, without all doubt, would be in a very fearful condi tion | But till this is the case, you need no more be afraid of ten thousand White Boys, than of ten thousand crows. 10. There is no need at present that an handful of men should oppose themselves to a multitude. Blessed be God, there are still within the kingdom some thousands of regular troops, of horse as well as foot, who are ready to march wherever they shall be wanted; over and above the inde pendent companies at Birr, at Mountmellick, at Bandon, and at Cork; at which city alone no less than six of these companies are formed already; which it is supposed, when they shall be completed, will contain at least two thousand men. And as they exercise themselves every day, they are already expert in the whole military exercise. So that were any so mad as to attempt making an insurrection, it would be crushed in its very infancy. 11. “But is there not another ground of fear?

Do you know what the spirit of Popery is? Did you never hear of that in Queen Mary’s reign; and of the holy men who were then burned alive by the Papists, because they did not dare to do as they did; to worship angels and saints, to pray to the Virgin Mary, to * This was published at the beginning of the late rebellion. bow down to images, and the like? If we had a King of this spirit, whose life would be safe? at least, what homest man’s? A knave indeed might turn with the times. But what a dreadful thing would this be to a man of conscience: “Either turn or burn: Either go into that fire, or into ‘the fire that never shall be quenched?’” 3. And can you dream that your property would be any safer than your conscience? Nay, how should that be? Nothing is plainer than that the Pretender cannot be King of England, unless it be by conquest. But every conqueror may do what he will; the laws of the land are no laws to him. And who can doubt, but one who should conquer England by the assistance of France, would copy after the French rules of government? 4. How dreadful then is the condition wherein we stand? on the very brink of utter destruction | But why are we thus? I am afraid the answer is too plain to every con siderate man: Because of our sins; because we have well-nigh “filled up the measure of our iniquities.” For, what wicked ness is there under heaven which is not found among us at this day? Not to insist on the Sabbath-breaking in every corner of our land; the thefts, cheating, fraud, extortion; the injustice, violence, oppression; the lying and dissimu lating; the robberies, sodomies, and murders; which, with a thousand unnamed villanies, are common to us and our neighbour Christians of Holland, France, and Germany; consider, over and above, what a plentiful harvest we have of wickedness almost peculiar to ourselves. For who can vic with us in the direction of Courts of Justice; in the manage ment of public charities; or in the accomplished, barefaced wickedness which so abounds in our prisons, and fleets, and armies?

O bring him out of all His sanctified distress, And by his name thy servant call, And fill him with thy peace. Show him, almighty Lord, That thou his Saviour art; And speak the soul-converting word, “My son, give me thy heart l” 18? 1. Do not you call yourself a Protestant? Why so? Do you know what the word means? What is a Protestant? I suppose you mean one that is not a Papist. But what is a Papist? If you do not know, say so; acknowledge you cannot tell. Is not this the case? You call yourself a Protestant; but you do not know what a Protestant is. You talk against Papists; and yet neither do you know what a Papist is. Why do you pretend, then, to the knowledge which you have not? Why do you use words which you do not understand? 2. Are you desirous to know what these words, Papist and Protestant, mean? A Papist is one who holds the Pope or Bishop of Rome (the name papa, that is, father, was formerly given to all Bishops) to be head of the whole Christian Church; and the Church of Rome, or that which owns the Pope as their head, to be the only Christian Church. 3. In a course of years, many errors crept into this Church, of which good men complained from time to time. At last, about two hundred years ago, the Pope appointed many Bishops and others to meet at a town in Germany, called Trent. But these, instead of amending those errors, established them all by a law, and so delivered them down to all succeeding generations. 4. Among these errors may be numbered, their doctrine of seven sacraments; of transubstantiation; of communion in one kind only; of purgatory, and praying for the dead therein; of veneration of relics; and of indulgences, or pardons granted by the Pope, and to be bought for money. It is thought by some, that these errors, great as they are, do only defile the purity of Christianity; but it is sure, the following strike at its very root, and tend to banish true religion out of the world:-- 5. First. The doctrine of merit.

Othou Saviour of all that trust in thee, do with me what seemeth best in thine own eyes; only give me the mind which was in thee; let me learn of thee to be meek and lowly. Pour into me the whole spirit of humility; fill, I beseech thee, every part of my soul with it, and make it the constant, ruling habit of my mind, that all my other tempers may arise from it; that I may have no thoughts, no desires, no designs, but such as are the true fruit of a lowly spirit. Grant that I may think of myself as I ought to think, that I may “know myself, even as I am known.” Hercin may I exercise myself continually, when I lie down and when I rise up, that I may always appear poor, and little, and mean, and base, and vile in mine own eyes. O convince me that “I have neither learned wisdom, nor have the know ledge of the holy.” Give me a lively sense that I am nothing, that I have nothing, and that I can do nothing. Enable me to feel that I am all ignorance and error, weakness and uncleanness, sin and misery; that I am not worthy of the air I breathe, the earth I tread upon, or the sun that shines upon me. And let me be fully content when all other men think of me as I do of myself. O save me from either desiring or seeking the honour that cometh of men. Convince me that the words of praise, “when smoother than oil,” then especially “are very swords.” Give me to dread them more than the “poison of asps,” or “the pestilence that walketh in darkness.” And when these cords of pride, these snares of death, do overtake me, suffer me not to take any pleasure in them, but enable me instantly to flee unto thee, O Lord, and to complain unto my God.

Another instance of his tenderness of conscience occurred when he was about seven years of age : He was one day reproved by the nursery-maid, saying, “You are a naughty boy. Do you not know, that the devil is to take away all naughty children?” He was no sooner in bed, than he began to reflect very deeply upon her words: He thought, “I am a naughty boy; and how do I know but God may let the devil take me away this night?” He then got up and wrestled with God in prayer for a considerable time; and he would not go to bed again till he believed God had forgiven him. 4. The following accounts Mr. Fletcher himself gave to Mr. Samuel Webb, of London, then residing at Madeley:-- “When I was a lad, I had a design to get some fruit out of my father's garden: The door being locked, I could not get in, but by climbing over the wall. This was very high; but with some difficulty I got to the top of it. As I was walking upon it, my foot slipped, and I fell down to the bottom. But just where I fell a large quantity of fresh made mortar was laid. I fell exactly upon it. This broke my fall, or it might have cost me my life. 5. “Once, as I was swimming by myself in a deep water, one end of a strong riband which bound my hair, getting loose I know not how, and twisting about my leg, tied me as it were neck and heels. I strove with all my strength to disengage myself; but it was to no purpose. No person being within call, I gave myself up for lost. But when I had given over struggling, the riband loosed of itself. 6. “Another instance of the tender care which God had over me was as follows:--One evening I and four young gentlemen, in high spirits, made a solemn agreement with each other to swim the next day to a rocky island, five miles distant from the shore. But this foolish adventure was within a very little of costing us all our lives. I and another indeed did with great difficulty and hazard swim to the island; but when we came thither, the rock was so steep and smooth, that we could not possibly climb up.

I and another indeed did with great difficulty and hazard swim to the island; but when we came thither, the rock was so steep and smooth, that we could not possibly climb up. After swim ming round several times, and making many ineffectual efforts, we thought we must perish there; but at length one of us found a place, where he made a shift to crawl up. He then helped his companion after him. The others swam about half-way. A boat then took them up, when they were just sinking. Another boat, which we had ordered to follow us, afterwards came and took us home.” 7. A still more remarkable deliverance it is of which he gave an account in the year 1760: “Some years since, I lived at a place very near the river Rhine. In that part, it is broader than the Thames at London Bridge, and extremely rapid. But, having been long practised in swimming, I made no scruple of going into it at any time; only I was always careful to keep near the shore, that the stream might not carry me away. Once, however, being less careful than usual, I was unawares drawn into the mid channel. The water there was extremely rough, and poured along like a galloping horse. I endeavoured to swim against it, but in vain, till I was hurried far from home. When I was almost spent, I rested upon my back, and then looked about for a landing place, finding I must either land or sink. With much difficulty I got near the shore; but the rocks were so ragged and sharp, that I saw, if I attempted to land there, I should be torn in pieces; so I was constrained to turn again to the mid stream. At last, despairing of life, I was cheered by the sight of a fine smooth creek, into which I was swiftly carried by a violent stream. A building stood directly across it, which I did not then know to be a powder-mill. The last thing I can remem ber was, the striking of my breast against one of the piles whereon it stood. I then lost my senses, and knew nothing more, till I rose on the other side of the mill.

Shirley, inviting the Clergy of all denomina tions to assemble in a body at Bristol to oppose you and the Preachers met in Conference, and oblige you to revoke the dreadful heresies contained in those Minutes; and as Mr. Fletcher thought the Churches throughout Christendom to be verging very fast toward Antinomianism; he thought the propositions contained in those Minutes ought rather to be confirmed than revoked. And as he was now retired to his parish, he had more leisure for such a work than before. So, after much prayer and consideration, he determined to write in defence of them. In how able a manner he did this, I need not tell any that have read those incomparable writings. I know not how to give the character of them better, than in the words of Dr. D , to whom I sent Mr. Fletcher's Checks, with a recommendatory letter. He answered me,-- “‘WHEN I first read yours, I must own, I suspected your friendship for Mr. Fletcher had made you too lavish in your commendation of his writings; and that when I came to read them, I should find some abatements necessary to be made. But now I have read them, I am far from thinking you have spoken extravagantly; or indeed, that too much can be said in commendation of them. I had not read his first Letter, before I was so charmed with the spirit as well as abilities of the writer, that the gushing tear could not be hin dered from giving full testimony of my heart-felt satisfaction. Perhaps some part of this pleasure might arise from finding my own sentiments so fully embraced by the author. But sure I am the greatest share of it arose from finding those benevolent doctrines so firmly established, and that with such judgment, clearness, and precision, as are seldom, very seldom to be met with. What crowns the whole is, the amiable and Christian temper, which those who will not be convinced must however approve, and wish that their own doctrines may be constantly attended with the same spirit.’” 17. How much good has been occasioned by the publication of that Circular Letter! This was the happy occasion of Mr.

While he was here, as Mr. Ireland and he were one day going through one of the streets in a coach, they were informed, the Pope was coming forward; and it would be required of them to come out of the coach, and kneel while he went by, as all the people did: If they did not, in all probability the zealous mob would fall upon them and knock them on the head. But this, whatever might be the consequence, they flatly refused to do; judging the paying such honour to a man was neither better nor worse than idolatry. The coachman was exceed ingly terrified, not knowing what to do. However, at length he made shift to turn aside into a narrow way. The Pope was in an open landau. He waved his hands as if he had been swimming; and frequently repeated these words, “God bless you all!” Mr. Fletcher's spirit was greatly stirred, and he longed to bear a public testimony against Antichrist; and he would undoubtedly have done it, had he been able to speak Italian. He could hardly refrain from doing it in Latin, till he considered that only the Priests could have understood him. One to whom he related this, saying, if he had done this the multitude would have torn him in pieces; he answered, “I believe the Pope himself would have prevented; for he was a man of sense and humanity.” 20. While he was at Paris, he was desired to visit and pray with a sick woman. Information of this was quickly given to a Magistrate, with abundance of aggravation. In conse quence of this an order was procured from the King himself for the apprehending him. This might not improbably have cost him his life, or, at least, a long and expensive imprison ment. When the Officer came to the door of the house where he lodged, Mr. Ireland stepped out, and said, “Sir, have you a warrant for me?” He (supposing him to be Mr. Fletcher) answered, “I have; you must come with me.” Mr. Ireland went very quietly with him. But when they came before the Magistrate, the accuser said, “This is not the man; I know nothing of this gentleman.” Another messenger was then sent; but before he came to the house, Mr. Fletcher was too far off to be overtaken. 21.

Two things are here asserted concerning Mr. Fletcher: The First, that he was extremely passionate: The Second, that there was an austere severity and rigour in his conduct toward the young persons under his care, particularly at Trevecka. The former assertion is unquestionably true; such he was by nature. The latter I question much, with regard to his con duct at Tern, as well as at Trevecka. None can be a more competent witness of his conduct at Tern, than Mr. Vaughan, who lived so long in the same house; and whose testimony concerning him has been so largely given in the preceding pages. But, waving this, can it possibly be supposed, that either Mr. Hill, or his sons, then verging toward manhood; would have borne the austere rigour and severity of a young man that received his bread from them? yea, and that year after year? Surely the supposition shocks all credibility. 8. Equally incredible is the assertion of his “austere severity and rigour ’’ toward the young men, at Trevecka. This is inconsistent with the whole account given by Mr. Benson, an eye and ear witness of all his conduct. Had it been true in any degree, would it have been possible that he should have been so esteemed and beloved by those very young men? I cannot form the least conjecture whence such an assertion could arise unless it was invented by some young man after Mr. Fletcher was dismissed, in order to ingratiate himself with his patroness. 9. The farther account which Mr. Benson gives of him from personal knowledge is this: “Mr. Fletcher,” says he, “was maturally a man of strong passions, and prone to anger in particular; insomuch that he has frequently thrown himself on the floor, and laid there most of the night bathed in tears, imploring victory over his own spirit. And he did not strive in vain; he did obtain the victory, in a very eminent degree. For twenty years and upwards before his death, no one ever saw him out of temper, or heard him utter a rash expression, on any provocation whatever.

For twenty years and upwards before his death, no one ever saw him out of temper, or heard him utter a rash expression, on any provocation whatever. I have often thought the testimony that Bishop Burnet, in the History of his own Times, bears of Archbishop Leighton, might be borne of him with equal propriety: “After an intimate acquaintance with the Archbishop for many years, and after being with him by night and by day, at home and abroad, in public and in private, on sundry occasions and in various affairs, I must say, I never heard an idle word drop from his lips, nor any conversation which was not to the use of edifying. I never saw him in any temper in which I myself would not have wished to be found at death. Any that has been intimately acquainted with Mr. Fletcher will say the same of him. But they that knew him best, will say it with the most assurance. 10. His “disengagements from the world, and love of the poor,” Mrs. Fletcher joins together. “Never,” says she, “did I behold any one more dead to the things of the world. His treasure was above; and so was his heart also. He always remembered that admonition of the Apostle, “No man that warreth entangleth himself with the things of this life.” It was his constant endeavour to preserve a mind free and disen cumbered; and he was exceeding wary of undertaking any business that might distract and hurry it. Yet, in his worldly concerns, knowing himself to be a steward for God, he would not through carelessness waste one penny. He likewise judged it to be his bounden duty to demand what he knew to be his right. And yet he could well reconcile this with that word, “He that will have thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” Indeed, whether he had less or more, it was the same thing upon his own account, as he had no other use for it, but to spread the gospel, and to assist the poor. And he frequently said, he never was happier than when he had given away the last penny he had in his house. If at any time I had gold in my drawers, it seemed to afford him no comfort.

But last spring, God visited him with a severe illness, which brought him to a sense of himself. And, after a deep repentance, he died about a month ago, in the full assurance of faith. This has put several of my friends on thinking seriously, which affords me great cause of thankfulness. I am “Your unworthy brother and servant in the Lord, 14. Two years after he wrote to him as follows: “I THANK you for your encouraging observations. I want them, and use them by the grace of God. When I received yours, I had not had one opportunity of preaching; so incensed were all the Clergy against me. One, however, let me have the use of his church, the Abbey church, at Shrewsbury. I 348 LIFE OF Mirt. FLETCHER. preached in the forenoon with some degree of the demonstra tion of the Spirit. The congregation was very numerous; and I believe one half at least desired to hear me again. But the Minister would not let me have the pulpit any more. The next Sunday, the Minister of a neighbouring parish lying a dying, I was sent for to officiate for him. He died a few days after, and the chief man in the parish offered to make interest that I might succeed him. But I could not consent. The next Sunday, I preached at Shrewsbury again; but in another church. The next day I set out for Bristol, and was much refreshed among the brethren. As I returned I called at New-Kingswood, about sixteen miles from Bristol. The Minister offering me his church, I preached to a numerous congregation, gathered on half an hour's notice. I think the seed then sown will not be lost.” 15. “Another uncommon talent which God had given him,” says Mrs. Fletcher, “was a peculiar sensibility of spirit. He had a temper the most feeling of any I ever knew. Hardly a night passed over, but some part of it was spent in groans for the souls and bodies committed to his care. I dreaded his hearing either of the sins or sufferings of any of his people before the time of his going to bed, knowing how strong the impressions would be on his mind, chasing the sleep from his eyes.

Neither ought he in anywise to cast away his confidence, or to deny the faith he has received, because it is weak, or because it is ‘tried with fire, so that his soul is ‘in heaviness through manifold temptations.” “Neither dare we affirm, as some have done, that all this salvation is given at once. There is indeed an instantaneous, as well as a gradual, work of God in his children; and there wants not, we know, a cloud of witnesses, who have received, in one moment, either a clear sense of the forgiveness of their sins, or the abiding witness of the Holy Spirit. But we do not know a single instance, in any place, of a person’s receiving, in one and the same moment, remission of sins, the abiding witness of the Spirit, and a new, a clean heart. “Indeed, how God may work, we cannot tell; but the general manner wherein he does work is this: Those who once trusted in themselves that they were righteous, that they were rich, and increased in goods, and had need of nothing, are, by the Spirit of God applying his word, convinced that they are poor and naked. All the things that they have done are brought to their remembrance and set in array before them, so that they see the wrath of God hanging over their heads, and feel that they deserve the damnation of hell. In their trouble they cry unto the Lord, and he shows them that he hath taken away their sins, and opens the kingdom of heaven in their hearts, ‘righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ Sorrow and pain are fled away, and “sin has no more dominion over them. Knowing they are justified freely through faith in his blood, they “have peace with God * Sometimes they do not; at other times they do, and that grievously. + Not all who are saved from sin; many of them have not attained it yet.

“A. By silence, he might avoid many crosses, which will naturally and necessarily ensue, if he simply declare, even among believers, what God has wrought in his soul. If, there fore, such a one were to confer with flesh and blood, he would be entirely silent. But this could not be done with a clear conscience; for undoubtedly he ought to speak. Men do not light a candle to put it under a bushel; much less does the all-wise God. He does not raise such a monument of his power and love, to hide it from all mankind. Rather, he intends it as a general blessing to those who are simple of heart. He designs thereby, not barely the happiness of that individual person, but the animating and encouraging others to follow after the same blessing. His will is, ‘that many shall see it’ and rejoice, ‘and put their trust in the Lord.” Nor does anything under heaven more quicken the desires of those who are justified, than to converse with those whom they believe to have experienced a still higher salvation. This places that salvation full in their view, and increases their hunger and thirst after it; an advantage which must have been entirely lost, had the person so saved buried himself in silence. “Q. But is there no way to prevent these crosses which usually fall on those who speak of being thus saved? “A. It seems they cannot be prevented altogether, while so much of nature remains even in believers. But something might be done, if the Preacher in every place would, (1.) Talk freely with all who speak thus; and, (2) Labour to prevent the unjust or unkind treatment of those in favour of whom there is reasonable proof. “Q. What is reasonable proof? How may we certainly know one that is saved from all sin 2 “A. We cannot infallibly know one that is thus saved, (no, nor even one that is justified,) unless it should please God to endow us with the miraculous discernment of spirits. But we apprehend those would be sufficient proofs to any reasonable man, and such as would leave little room to doubt either the truth or depth of the work: (1.) If we had clear evidence of his exemplary behaviour for some time before this supposed change.

But we apprehend those would be sufficient proofs to any reasonable man, and such as would leave little room to doubt either the truth or depth of the work: (1.) If we had clear evidence of his exemplary behaviour for some time before this supposed change. This would give us reason to believe, he would not “lie for God,” but speak neither more nor less than he felt; (2.) If he gave a distinct account of the time and manner wherein the change was wrought, with sound speech which could not be reproved; and, (3.) If it appeared that all his subsequent words and actions were holy and unblamable. “The short of the matter is this: (1) I have abundant reason to believe, this person will not lie; (2.) He testifies before God, ‘I feel no sin, but all love; I pray, rejoice, and give thanks without ceasing; and I have as clear an inward witness, that I am fully renewed, as that I am justified.” Mow, if I have nothing to oppose to this plain testimony, I ought in reason to believe it. “It avails nothing to object, “But I know several things wherein he is quite mistaken.” For it has been allowed, that all who are in the body are liable to mistake; and that a mistake in judgment may sometimes occasion a mistake in practice; though great care is to be taken that no ill use be made of this concession. For instance: Even one that is perfected in love may mistake with regard to another person, and may think him, in a particular case, to be more or less faulty than he really is. And hence he may speak to him with more or less severity than the truth requires. And in this sense, (though that be not the primary meaning of St. James,) “in many things we offend all. This therefore is no proof at all, that the person so speaking is not perfect. “Q. But is it not a proof, if he is surprised or fluttered by a noise, a fall, or some sudden danger? “A. It is not; for one may start, tremble, change colour, or be otherwise disordered in body, while the soul is calmly stayed on God, and remains in perfect peace.

“Q. How should we treat those who think they have attained? “A. Examine them candidly, and exhort them to pray fervently, that God would show them all that is in their Thearts. The most earnest exhortations to abound in cvery grace, and the strongest cautions to avoid all evil, are given throughout the New Testament, to those who are in the highest state of grace. But this should be done with the utmost tenderness; and without any harshness, sternness, or sourness. We should carefully avoid the very appearance of anger, unkindness, or contempt. Leave it to Satan thus to. tempt, and to his children to cry out, ‘Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meek ness and prove his patience.” If they are faithful to the grace. given, they are in no danger of perishing thereby; no, not if they remain in that mistake till their spirit is returning to God. “Q. But what hurt can it do to deal harshly with them? “A. Either they are mistaken, or they are not. If they are, it may destroy their souls. This is nothing impossible, no, nor improbable. It may so enrage or so discourage them, that they will sink and rise no more. If they are not mistaken, it may grieve those whom God has not grieved, and do much hurt unto our own souls. For undoubtedly he that toucheth them, toucheth, as it were, the apple of God's eye. If they are indeed full of his Spirit, to behave unkindly or contemptuously to them is doing no little despite to the Spirit of grace. Hereby, likewise, we feed and increase in ourselves evil surmising, and many wrong tempers. To instance only in one: What self-sufficiency is this, to set ourselves up for inquisitors-general, for peremptory judges in these deep things of God! Are we qualified for the office? Can we pronounce, in all cases, how far infirmity reaches? what may, and what may not, be resolved into it? what may in all circumstances, and what may not, consist with perfect love? Can we precisely determine, how it will influence the look, the gesture, the tone of voice? If we can, doubtless we are ‘the men, and wisdom shall die with us.” “Q. But if they are displeased at our not believing them, is not this a full proof against them? . “A.

There was danger before, and there will be again when he comes into fresh trials. But so long as he feels nothing but love animating all his thoughts, and words, and actions, he is in no danger; he is not only happy, but safe, ‘under the shadow of the Almighty;’ and, for God’s sake, let him continue in that love as long as he can. Meantime, you may do well to warn him of the danger that will be, if his love grow cold and sin revive; even the danger of casting away hope, and supposing, that, because he hath not attained yet, therefore he never shall. “Q. But what, if none have attained it yet? What, if all who think so are deceived? “A. Convince me of this, and I will preach it no more. But understand me right: I do not build any doctrine on this or that person. This or any other man may be deceived, and I am not moved. But, if there are none made perfect yet, God has not sent me to preach perfection. “Put a parallel case: For many years I have preached, “There is a peace of God which passeth all understanding.’ ‘Convince me that this word has fallen to the ground; that in all these years none have attained this peace; that there is no living witness of it at this day; and I will preach it no more. “‘O, but several persons have died in that peace. Per haps so; but I want living witnesses. I cannot indeed be infallibly certain that this or that person is a witness; but if I were certain there are mone such, I must have done with this doctrine. “‘You misunderstand me. I believe some who died in this love, enjoyed it long before their death. But I was not certain that their former testimony was true till some hours before they died.’ “You had not an infallible certainty then: And a reason able certainty you might have had before; such a certainty as might have quickened and comforted your own soul, and answered all other Christian purposes. Such a certainty as this, any candid person may have, suppose there be any living witness, by talking one hour with that person in the love and fear of God. “Q. But what does it signify, whether any have attained.

13. But if Christ has put an end to that law, what need of any atonement for their transgressing it? “A. Observe in what sense he has put an end to it, and the difficulty vanishes. Were it not for the abiding merit of his death, and his continual intercession for us, that law would condemn us still. These, therefore, we still need for every transgression of it. “Q. 14. But can one that is saved from sin be tempted? “A. Yes; for Christ was tempted. “Q. 15. However, what you call temptation, I call the corruption of my heart. And how will you distinguish one from the other? “A. In some cases it is impossible to distinguish, without the direct witness of the Spirit. But in general one may distinguish thus: “One commends me. Here is a temptation to pride. But instantly my soul is humbled before God. And I feel no pride; of which I am as sure, as that pride is not humility. “A man strikes me. Here is a temptation to anger. But my heart overflows with love. And I feel no anger at all; of which I can be as sure, as that love and anger are not the same. “A woman solicits me. Here is a temptation to lust. But in the instant I shrink back. And I feel no desire or lust at all; of which I can be as sure, as that my hand is cold or hot. “Thus it is, if I am tempted by a present object; and it is just the same, if, when it is absent, the devil recals a commenda tion, an injury, or a woman, to my mind. In the instant the soul repels the temptation, and remains filled with pure love. * “And the difference is still plainer, when I compare my present state with my past, wherein I felt temptation and corruption too. “Q. 16. But how do you know, that you are sanctified, saved from your inbred corruption? “A. I can know it no otherwise than I know that I am justified. ‘Hereby know we that we are of God,” in either sense, ‘by the Spirit that he hath given us.” “We know it by the witness and by the fruit of the Spirit. And, First, by the witness.

And, First, by the witness. As, when we were justified, the Spirit bore witness with our spirit, that our sins were forgiven; so, when we were sanctified, he bore witness, that they were taken away. Indeed, the witness of sanctification is not always clear at first; (as neither is that of justification;) neither is it afterward always the same, but, like that of justification, sometimes stronger and sometimes fainter. Yea, and some times it is withdrawn. Yet, in general, the latter testimony of the Spirit is both as clear and as steady as the former. “Q. 17. But what need is there of it, seeing sanctification is a real change, not a relative only, like justification? “A. But is the new birth a relative change only ? Is not this a real change? Therefore, if we need no witness of our sanctification, because it is a real change, for the same reason we should need none, that we are born of or are the children of God. “Q. 18. But does not sanctification shine by its own light? “A. And does not the new birth too? Sometimes it does; and so does sanctification; at others it does not. In the hour of temptation Satan clouds the work of God, and injects various doubts and reasonings, especially in those who have either very weak or very strong understandings. At such times there is absolute need of that witness; without which the work of sanctification not only could not be discerned, but could no longer subsist. Were it not for this, the soul could not then abide in the love of God; much less could it rejoice evermore, and in everything give thanks. In these circumstances, therefore, a direct testimony that we are sanctified is necessary in the highest degree. “‘But I have no witness that I am saved from sin. And yet I have no doubt of it.’ Very well: As long as you have no doubt, it is enough; when you have, you will need that witness. Chi RISTIAN PERFECTION. 421 “Q. 19. But what scripture makes mention of any such thing, or gives any reason to expect it? “A. That scripture, ‘We have received, not the spirit that is of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we may know the things which are freely given us of God.” (1 Corinthians ii.

That scripture, ‘We have received, not the spirit that is of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we may know the things which are freely given us of God.” (1 Corinthians ii. 12.) “Now surely sanctification is one of ‘the things which are freely given us of God.’ And no possible reason can be assigned why this should be excepted, when the Apostle says, “We receive the Spirit” for this very end, ‘that we may know the things which are’ thus ‘freely given us.” “Is not the same thing implied in that well-known scripture, “The Spirit itself witnesseth with our spirit, that we are the children of God?’ (Romans viii. 16.) Does he witness this only to those who are children of God in the lowest sense? Nay, but to those also who are such in the highest sense. And does he not witness, that they are such in the highest sense ? What reason have we to doubt it? “What, if a man were to affirm, (as indeed many do,) that this witness belongs only to the highest class of Christians? Would not you answer, “The Apostle makes no restriction; therefore doubtless it belongs to all the children of God?” And will not the same answer hold, if any affirm, that it belongs only to the lowest class? “Consider likewise 1 John v. 19: ‘We know that we are of God. How? ‘By the Spirit that he hath given us.” Nay, “hereby we know that He abideth in us.” And what ground have we, either from Scripture or reason, to exclude the witness, any more than the fruit, of the Spirit, from being here intended? By this then also ‘we know that we are of God,” and in what sense we are so; whether we are babes, young men, or fathers, we know in the same manner. “Not that I affirm that all young men, or even fathers, have this testimony every moment. There may be inter missions of the direct testimony that they are thus born of God; but those intermissions are fewer and shorter as they grow up in Christ; and some have the testimony both of their justification and sanctification, without any intermission at all; which I presume more might have, did they walk humbly and closely with God. “Q. 20.

20. May not some of them have a testimony from the $pirit, that they shall not finally fall from God? “A. They may. And this persuasion, that neither life nor death shall separate them from Him, far from being hurtful, may in some circumstances be extremely useful. These therefore we should in mowise grieve, but earnestly encourage them to ‘hold the beginning of their confidence steadfast to the end.” “Q. 21. But have any a testimony from the Spirit that they shall never sin? “A. We know not what God may vouchsafe to some particular persons; but we do not find any general state described in Scripture, from which a man cannot draw back to sin. If there were any state wherein this was impossible, it would be that of these who are sanctified, who are ‘fathers in Christ, who rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in everything give thanks; but it is not impossible for these to draw back. They who are sanctified, yet may fall and perish. (Heb. x. 29.) Even fathers in Christ need that warning: ‘Love not the world.” (1 John ii. 15.) They who “rejoice, pray, and ‘give thanks without ceasing, may, nevertheless, ‘quench the Spirit.” (1 Thess. v. 16, &c.) Nay, even they who are ‘sealed unto the day of redemption,” may yet “grieve the Holy Spirit of God.” (Ephesians iv. 30.) “Although, therefore, God may give such a witness to some particular persons, yet it is not to be expected by Christians in general; there being no scripture whereon to ground such an expectation. “Q. 22. By what ‘fruit of the Spirit” may we ‘know that we are of God, even in the highest sense? “A. By love, joy, peace, always abiding; by invariable long suffering, patience, resignation; by gentleness, triumphing over all provocation; by goodness, mildness, sweetness, ten derness of spirit; by fidelity, simplicity, godly sincerity; by meekness, calmness, evenness of spirit; by temperance, not. only in food and sleep, but in all things natural and spiritual. “Q. 23. But what great matter is there in this? Have we not all this when we are justified? “A. What, total resignation to the will of God, without any mixture of self-will?' gentleness, without any touch of anger, even the moment we are provoked ? love to God, without the least love to the creature, but in and for God, excluding all pride?

Is thine eye evil, because he is good?” “It need not, therefore, be affirmed over and over, and proved by forty texts of Scripture, either that most men are perfected in love at last, that there is a gradual work of God in the soul, or that, generally speaking, it is a long time, even many years, before sin is destroyed. All this we know : But we know likewise, that God may, with man’s good leave, ‘cut short his work, in whatever degree he pleases, and do the usual work of many years in a moment. He does so in many instances; and yet there is a gradual work, both before and after that moment: So that one may affirm the work is gradual, another, it is instantaneous, without any manner of contradiction. “Q. 26. Does St. Paul mean any more by being ‘sealed with the Spirit, than being ‘renewed in love?’ “A. Perhaps in one place, (2 Cor. i. 22) he does not mean so much ; but in another, (Eph. i. 13,) he seems to include both the fruit and the witness; and that in a higher degree than we experience even when we are first ‘renewed in love;’ God “sealeth us with the Spirit of promise,’ by giving us ‘the full assurance of hope; such a confidence of receiving all the promises of God, as excludes the possibility of doubting; with that Holy Spirit, by universal holiness, stamping the whole image of God on our hearts. “Q. 27. But how can those who are thus sealed ‘grieve the Holy Spirit of God?” “A. St. Paul tells you very particularly, (1.) By such conversation as is not profitable, not to the use of edifying, not apt to minister grace to the hearers. (2.) By relapsing into bitterness or want of kindness. (3.) By wrath, lasting displeasure, or want of tender-heartedness. (4.) By anger, however soon it is over; want of instantly forgiving one another. (5.) By clamour or bawling, loud, harsh, rough speaking. (6.) By evil-speaking, whispering, tale-bearing; needlessly mentioning the fault of an absent person, though in ever so soft a manner. “Q. 28. What do you think of those in London, who seem to have been lately ‘renewed in love?’ “A. There is something very peculiar in the experience of the greater part of them.

“Some are wanting in temperance. They do not steadily use that kind and degree of food, which they know, or might know, would most conduce to the health, strength, and vigour of the body: Or they are not temperate in sleep; they do not rigorously adhere to what is best both for body and mind; otherwise they would constantly go to bed and rise early, and at a fixed hour: Or they sup late, which is neither good for body nor soul: Or they use neither fasting nor abstinence: Or they prefer (which are so many sorts of intemperance) that preaching, reading, or conversation, which gives them transient joy and comfort, before that which brings godly sorrow, or instruction in righteousness. Such joy is not sanctified; it doth not tend to, and terminate in, the crucifixion of the heart. Such faith doth not centre in God, but rather in itself. “So far all is plain. I believe you have faith, and love, and joy, and peace. Yet you who are particularly concerned know each for yourself, that you are wanting in the respects above-mentioned. You are wanting either in long-suffering, gentleness, or goodness; either in fidelity, meekness, or temperance. Let us not, then, on either hand, fight about words. In the thing we clearly agree. “You have not what I call perfection; if others will call it so, they may. However, hold fast what you have, and earnestly pray for what you have not. “Q. 29. Can those who are perfect grow in grace? “A. Undoubtedly they can; and that not only while they are in the body, but to all eternity. “Q. 30. Can they fall from it? “A. I am well assured they can; matter of fact puts this beyond dispute. Formerly we thought, one saved from sin could not fall; now we know the contrary. We are sur rounded with instances of those who lately experienced all that I mean by perfection. They had both the fruit of the Spirit, and the witness; but they have now lost both. Neither does any one stand by virtue of anything that is implied in the nature of the state. There is no such height or strength of holiness as it is impossible to fall from. If there be any that cannot fall, this wholly depends on the promise of God. “Q. 31.

But I believe it may be ten, twenty, or forty years before. I believe it is usually many years after justification; but that it may be within five years or five months after it, I know no conclusive argument to the contrary. If it must be many years after justification, I would be glad to know how many. Pretium quotus arroget annus * * And how many days or months, or even years, can any one allow to be between perfection and death? How far from justification must it be; and how near to death? LoNDoN, Jan. 27, 1767. *This quotation from Horace is thus translated by Boscawen : “How many years give sanction to our lines?”-EDIT. 1. THE words, as literally translated as the English tongue will bear, run thus: “May the whole of you, the spirit, and the soul, and the body, be preserved blameless.” What does St. Paul here mean by dividing man into three parts, “the spirit, and the soul, and the body?” This creates what has been thought an insurmountable difficulty by those who argue thus: “How is it possible to contradistinguish the soul both from the spirit and from the body? For it must be either material or immaterial, matter or not matter: There is no medium. But if it be matter, does it not co-incide with the body? If it be not matter, does it not co-incide with the spirit 7” But perhaps a way may be found of untieing this knot, of unraveling this difficulty, by simply declaring the (at least probable) meaning of these three terms. May not the spirit mean (so it has been understood by the Christians in all ages) the highest principle in man, the immortal spirit made in the image of God, endued (as all spirits are, so far as we can conceive) with self-motion, understanding, will, and liberty? Is not the body that portion of organized matter which every man receives in the womb, with which he is born into the world, and which he carries with him to the grave? At present it is connected with flesh and blood. But these are not the body. They are only the temporary clothing of the body, which it wholly puts off in the grave.

Why have they a place in the creation?” What, if I say I cannot tell? There are abundance of things in the creation which I do not know the use of. What are crocodiles, lions, tigers, scorpions for? Why have so many poisons a place in the creation? Some of them are for medicine: But what ever they are for, in whatever manner they may be useful, they are certainly not to be used in such a manner as God has expressly forbidden. 4. “But if they were not thus adorned, Kings and Generals would be despised by their subjects and soldiers.” Supposing they would, that is nothing to you; for you are neither Kings nor Generals. But it is absolutely certain they would not, if they were not despised on other accounts. If they are valiant and wise, they will never be despised for With REGARD TO DRESS, 473 the plainness of their dress. Was ever General or King more esteemed or beloved by his subjects and soldiers than King Charles of Sweden ? And it is sure he wore no gold or costly apparel, not so much as a common Officer. But we need not go so many years back. Who is the Prince that is now honoured and beloved both by his subjects and soldiers, far beyond any other King or General in Europe? There is no need to repeat his name. But does he gain this honour and love by the costliness of his apparel?. So far from it, that he rarely uses any other dress than the uniform of his own guards. 5. “But if all men were to dress like him, how would tradesmen live?” I answer, (1.) God certainly considered this before ever he gave these commands. And he would never have given them, had he not seen, that, if they were universally observed, men in general would live better than they otherwise could; better in this world, as well as that to come... But, (2.) There is no danger at all that they should be universally observed. Only a little flock in any civilized mation will observe them, till the knowledge of God covers the earth.

We did so; but could not find any trace of her. Coming down the stairs, I said, ‘Is there no one under these stairs?’ The Doctor answered, “There is a poor creature; but she is so outrageous, that we are obliged to shut her up in the dark. On his opening the door, she put out her head. My friend sighed, and said, ‘I know nothing of this poor thing. She answered, ‘What, Sir, am I so altered in three days, that you do not know your own daughter?” He immediately knew her voice, and took her home. Her husband was very glad to refund her fortune.” A GENTLEMAN walking with Mr. Chapoon, (uncle to Mr. Roquet) in Moorfields, proposed stepping into Bedlam. After they had walked there awhile, they were turning to go out, when a young woman cried, “Sir, I desire to speak with you.” His friend said, “Sure, you will not stay to hear a mad woman’s tale.” He answered, “Indeed I will:” On which the other went away. She then said, “My father left me and my fortune in the hands of my uncle. A young gentleman offered me marriage, and all things were agreed 498 Account of THE BROTHERs’ sTEPs. on; when one morning my uncle took me out with him in the chariot, as he said, to see a friend; but instead of this he brought me to Bedlam, where I have been confined ever since.” “Your story is plausible,” said Mr. C.; “but how shall I know it is the truth?” “Very easily,” said she, “The gentleman that was to marry me lives within a day's journey of London. Write to him; and tell him you have something to say concerning me, and would be glad to meet him at such a place in town. If he does not come, let this all pass for a mad woman’s dream.” Mr. C. wrote, and asked the gentleman, who came to the place appointed, whether he knew such a person. He answered, “Perfectly well. We were to have been married before now ; but her uncle sent me word she was taken ill.” Mr. C. then told him the whole story. He immediately sent to her uncle; who was very ready to take her out, and pay her fortune, to avoid farther trouble.

I know that those who fashionably deny the existence of spirits are hugely disgusted at accounts of this kind. I know that they incessantly labour to spread this disgust among those that are of a better mind; because if one of these accounts be admitted, their whole system falls to the ground. But, whoever is pleased or displeased, I must testify what I believe to be the truth. Indeed I never myself saw the appearance of an umbodied spirit; and I never saw the commission of a murder. Yet, upon the testimony of unexceptionable witnesses, I can firmly believe both one and the other. September 12, 1782. NEwINGTON, December 10, 1748. 1. I HAve read your letter with attention, and much approve of the spirit with which it is wrote... You speak in love. I desire to do so too; and then no harm can be done on either side. You appear not to be wedded to your own opinion, but open to further conviction. I would willingly be of the same temper; not obstimately attached to either side of the question. I am clearly satisfied of the necessity of this; a willingness to see what as yet I see not. For I know, an unwillingness to be convinced would utterly blind either you or me; and that if we are resolved to retain our present opinion, reason and argument signify nothing. 2. I shall not therefore think it is time or pains misem ployed, to give the whole cause a second hearing; to recite the occasion of every step I have taken, and the motives inducing me so to do; and then to consider whatsoever either you or others have urged on the contrary side of the question. 3. Twenty-nine years since, when I had spent a few months at Oxford, having, as I apprehended, an exceeding good constitution, and being otherwise in health, I was a little surprised at some symptoms of a paralytic disorder. I could not imagine what should occasion the shaking of my hand; till I observed it was always worst after breakfast; and that if I intermitted drinking tea for two or three days, it did not shake at all.

If you are sincere in this plea, if you do not talk of CoNCERNING TEA. 509 your health, while the real objection is your inclination, make a fair trial thus: (1.) Take half a pint of milk every morning, with a little bread, not boiled, but warmed only: A man in tolerable health might double the quantity. (2.) If this is too heavy, add as much water, and boil it together, with a spoonful of oatmeal. (3.) If this agrees not, try half a pint, or a little more, of water-gruel, neither thick nor thin; not sweetened, for that may be apt to make him sick, but with a very little butter, salt, and bread. (4.) If this disagrees, try sage, green balm, mint, or penny-royal tea, infusing only so much of the herb as just to change the colour of the water. (5.) Try two or three of these mixed, in various proportions. (6.) Try ten or twelve other English herbs. (7.) Try foltron, a mixture of herbs to be had at many grocers’, far healthier, as well as cheaper, than tea. (8.) Try cocoa. If, after having tried each of these for a week or ten days, you find none of them will agree with your constitution, then use (weak green) tea again; but at the same time know, that your having used it so long has brought you near the chambers of death. 17. II. “I do not know,” says another, “but tea may hurt me; but there is nothing saved by leaving it off; for I am sure other things cost full as much.” I pray, what other things? Sack-and-sugar costs more; and so do ragouts, or pheasants, or ortolans. But what is this to the point? We do not say, All things are cheaper: But any of the things above mentioned are; at least, if prudently managed. Therefore, if you really desire to save what you can, you will drink tea no more. 18. “Well, I do not design to buy any more myself; but where others drink it, there is nothing saved by my abstaining.” I answer, First, Yes, something is saved, though but little; especially if you tell them before, “I shall not drink tea.” And many a little you know, put together, will make a great sum.

“Well, I do not design to buy any more myself; but where others drink it, there is nothing saved by my abstaining.” I answer, First, Yes, something is saved, though but little; especially if you tell them before, “I shall not drink tea.” And many a little you know, put together, will make a great sum. Secondly, If the whole saved were ever so little, if it were but two mites, when you save this for God, and your brethren’s sake, it is much. Thirdly, Your example in saving a little now, may occasion the saving of more by and by. Fourthly, It is not a little advantage which you may reap, even now, to your own soul; by habituating yourself not to be ashamed of being singular in a good thing; by taking up your cross, and denying yourself even in so small an instance, and by accustoming yourself to act on rational grounds, whether in a little matter or a great. 19. “But what is saved will be no better employed.” Do you say this with regard to yourself, or others? If with regard to yourself, it will be your fault if you do not employ it better. I do not say you will, but I am sure you may; and if you do not, it is your own sin, and your own shame. If with regard to others, how do you know that it will not be employed better? I trust it will. It cannot be denied that it often has, and that it always may be. And it is highly probable all who save anything from the best motive, will lay it out to the best purpose. 20. “As to example,” you say, “I have lately been without hopes of doing any good by it.” I suppose you mean, because so exceeding few will follow either your example or mine. I am sorry for it. This only gives me a fresh objection to this unwholesome, expensive food; viz., that it has too much hold on the hearts of them that use it; that, to use a scriptural phrase, they are “under the power of ” this trifle. If it be so, were there no other reason than this, they ought to throw it away at once; else they no more regard St.

And hear ye this, all you who have discovered the treasures which I amto leave behind me: If I leave behind me ten pounds, (above my debts, and my books, or what may happen to be due on account of them,) you and all mankind bear witness against me, that I lived and died a thief and a robber, 97. Before I conclude, I cannot but entreat you who know God to review the whole matter from the foundation. Call to mind what the state of religion was in our nation a few years since. In whom did you find the holy tempers that were in Christ? bowels of mercies, lowliness, meekness, gentleness, contempt of the world, patience, temperance, long-suffering? a burning love to God, rejoicing evermore, and in everything giving thanks; and a tender love to all mankind, covering, believing, hoping, enduring all things? Perhaps you did not know one such man in the world. But how many that had all unholy tempers? What vanity and pride, what stubbornness and self-will, what anger, fretfulness, discontent, what suspicion and resentment, what inordinate affections, what irregular pas sions, what foolish and hurtful desires, might you find in those who were called the best of men, in those who made the strict est profession of religion? And how few did you know who went so far as the profession of religion, who had even the “form of godliness!” Did you not frequently bewail, wherever your lot was cast, the general want of even outward religion? How few were seen at the public worship of God! how much fewer at the Lord’s table ! And was cven this little flock zealous of good works, careful, as they had time, to do good to all men? On the other hand, did you not with grief observe outward irreligion in every place? Where could you be for one week without being an eye or an ear witness of cursing, swearing, or profaneness, of sabbath-breaking or drunkenness, of quarrelling or brawling, of revenge or obscenity? Were these things done in a corner ? Did not gross iniquity of all kinds overspread our land as a flood? yea, and daily increase, in spite of all the oppo sition which the children of God did or could make against it? 98.

Answer. I suppose, by devotion, you mean public worship; by the true ends of it, the love of God and man; and by a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way, the going as often as we have oppor tunity to our parish church, and to the sacrament there adminis tered. If so, the question is, whether this attendance on those offices does not produce the love of God and man. I answer, Sometimes it does; and sometimes it does not. I myself thus attended them for many years; and yet am conscious to myself that during that whole time I had no more of the love of God than a stone. And I know many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of serious persons, who are ready to testify the same thing. Q. 2. But is not this a better evidence of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, than those sudden agonies? A. All these persons, as well as I, can testify also that this is no evidence at all of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit. For some years I attended these public offices, because I would not be punished for non-attendance. And many of these attended them, because their parents did before them, or because they would not lose their character: Many more, because they confounded the means with the end, and fancied this opus operatum would bring them to heaven. How many thousands are now under this strong delusion | Beware, you bring not their blood on your own head ! Q. 3. However, does not this attendance better answer those ends, than those roarings, screamings? &c. A. I suppose you mean, better than an attendance on that preaching, which has often been accompanied with these. I answer, (1.) There is no manner of need to set the one in opposition to the other; seeing we continually exhort all who attend on our preaching to attend the offices of the Church. And they do pay a more regular attendance there than ever they did before. (2.) Their attending the Church did not, in fact, answer those ends at all till they attended this preaching also. (3.) It is the preaching of remission of sins through Jesus Christ, which alone answers the true ends of devotion.

These do not tend to weaken either thenatural or civil relations among men; or to lead inferiors to a disesteem of their superiors, even where those superiors are neither good nor sober men. Query the Seventh --“Whether a gradual improvement in grace and goodness is not a better foundation of comfort, and of an assurance of a gospel new-birth, than that which is founded on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change; which, if there be any such thing, is not easily distinguished from fancy and imagination; the workings whereof we may well sup pose to be more strong and powerful, while the person considers himself in the state of one who is admitted as a candidate for such a change, and is taught in due time to expect it.” Let us go one step at a time. Query 1. Whether a gradual improvement in grace and goodness is not a good foundation of comfort. Answer. Doubtless it is, if by grace and goodness be meant the knowledge and love of God through Christ. Q. 2. Whether it be not a good foundation of an assurance of a gospel new-birth. A. If we daily grow in this knowledge and love, it is a good proof that we are born of the Spirit. But this does in mowise supersede the previous witness of God's Spirit with ours, that we are the children of God. And this is properly the foundation of the assurance of faith. Q. 3. Whether this improvement is not a better foundation of comfort, and ofanassuranceofagospel new-birth, than that which is founded on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change. A. A better foundation than that. That 1 What? To what substantive does this refer? According to the rulesofgrammar, (for all the substantives are in the genitive case, and, conse quently, to be considered as only parts of that which governs them,) you must mean a better foundation than that foundation which is founded on this doctrine. As soon as I understand the question, I will endeavour to answer it. Q. 4. Can that sudden and instantaneous change be easily distinguished from fancy and imagination? A. Just as easily as light from darkness; seeing it brings with it a peace that passeth all understanding, a joy unspeak able, full of glory, the love of God and all mankind filling the heart, and power over all sin.

This text, therefore, is directly to the purpose, in respect of both the propositions to be proved. The other is, “We love him, because he first loved us.” And here also, for fear I should fail in the proof, you have drawn it up ready to my hands:-- “God sent his only Son to redeem us from sin, by purchas ing for us grace and salvation. By which grace we, through faith and repentance, have our sins pardoned; and therefore we are bound to return the tribute of our love and gratitude, and to obey him faithfully as long as we live.” Now, that we have our sins pardoned, if we do not know they are pardoned, cannot bind us either to love or obedience. But if we do know it, and by that very knowledge or confidence in the pardoning love of God are both bound and enabled to love and obey him, this is the whole of what I contend for. 2. You afterwards object against some othertexts which I had cited to illustrate the nature of saving faith. My words were, “Hear believing Job declaring his faith: ‘I know that my Redeemer liveth.’” I here affirm two things: (1.) That Job was then a believer. (2.) That he declared his faith in these words. And all I affirm, you allow. Your own words are, “God was pleased to bestow upon him a strong assurance of his favour; to inspire him with a prophecy of the resurrection, and that he should have a share in it.” I went on, “Hear Thomas (when having seen he believed) crying out, ‘My Lord and my God.” Hereon you comment thus: “The meaning of which is, that St. Thomas makes a confession both of his faith and repentance.” I agree with you. But you add, “In St. Thomas’s confession there is not implied an assurance of pardon.” You cannot agree with yourself in this; but immediately subjoin, “If it did imply such an assurance, he might well have it, since he had an immediate revelation of it from God himself.” Yet a little before you endeavoured to prove that one who was not a whit behind the very chief Apostles had not such an assurance; where, in order to show that faith does not imply this, you said, “St.

Thomas’s confession there is not implied an assurance of pardon.” You cannot agree with yourself in this; but immediately subjoin, “If it did imply such an assurance, he might well have it, since he had an immediate revelation of it from God himself.” Yet a little before you endeavoured to prove that one who was not a whit behind the very chief Apostles had not such an assurance; where, in order to show that faith does not imply this, you said, “St. Paul methinks has fully determined this point, ‘I know nothing by myself,’ says he; ‘yet am I not hereby justified.’” (1 Cor. iv. 4.) “And if an Apostle, so illuminated, does not think himself justified,” then I grant, he has fully determined the point. But before you absolutely fix upon that conclusion, be pleased to remember your own comment that follows, on those other words of St. Paul : “The life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Your words are, “And, no question, a person endowed with such extraordinary gifts might arrive at a very eminent degree of assurance.” So he did arrive at a very eminent degree of assurance, though he did not think himself justified ! I can scarce think you have read over that chapter to the Colossians; else, surely, you would not assert that those words on which the stress lies (viz., “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, eventheforgiveness of sins,”)“do not relate to Pauland Timothy who wrote the Epistle, but to the Colossians, to whom they wrote.” I need be at no pains to answer this; for presently after your own words are, “He hath made us,” meaning the Colossians, as well as himself, “meet to be inheritors.” 3. You may easily observe that I quoted the Council of Trent by memory, not having the book then by me. I own, and thank you for correcting, my mistake: But in correct ing one you make another; for the decrees of the Sixth Session were not published on the thirteenth of January; but the Session itself began on that day.

Yea, and how can the absolute necessity of this faith, this unwavering confidence, be more strongly or peremptorily asserted, than it is in those words: “If we begin to waver or doubt, it is to be feared lest we sink as Peter did,--not into the water, but into the bottomless pit of hell-fire?” 6. I would willingly dismiss this writer here. I had said in the “Earnest Appeal,” (what I am daily more and more confirmed in,) that this faith is usually given in a moment. This you greatly dislike. Your argument against it, if put into form, will run thus:-- “They who first apprehended the meaning of the words delivered, then gave their assent to them, then had confidence in the promises to which they assented, and, lastly, loved God, did not receive faith in a moment. “But the believers mentioned in the Acts first apprehended the meaning of the words, then gave their assent, then had confidence in the promises, and, lastly, loved God: Therefore, “The believers mentioned in the Acts did not receive faith in a moment.” I deny the major. They might first apprehend, then assent, then confide, then love, and yet receive faith in a moment; in that moment wherein their general confidence became particular, so that each could say, “My Lord and my God!” One paragraph more I will be at the pains to transcribe: “You insinuate that the sacraments are only requisite to the well-being of a visible Church: Whereas the Church declares that the due administration of them is an essential property thereof. I suppose you hinted this to satisfy your loving dis ciples, the Quakers.” This is flat and plain. Here is a fact positively averred; and a reason also assigned for it. Now, do you take yourself to be a man of candour, I had almost said, of common honesty? My very words in the place referred to, are, “A visible Church is a company of faithful people. This is the essence of it. And the properties thereof are, that the pure word of God be preached therein, and the sacraments duly administered.” 7.

And the properties thereof are, that the pure word of God be preached therein, and the sacraments duly administered.” 7. Before I take my leave I cannot but recommend to you that advice of a wise and good man,-- “Be calm in arguing; for fierceness makes Error a fault, and truth discourtesy.” I am grieved at your extreme warmth : You are in a thorough ill-humour from the very beginning of your book to the end. This cannot hurt me; but it may yourself. And it does not at all help your cause. If you denounce against me all the curses from Genesis to the Revelation, they will not amount to one argument. I am willing (so far as I know myself) to be reproved either by you or any other. But whatever you do, let it be done in love, in patience, in meekness of wisdom. V. 1. With regard to the Author of faith and salvation, abundance of objections have been made; it being a current opinion, that Christians are not now to receive the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, whenever we speak of the Spirit of God, of his operations on the souls of men, of his revealing unto us the things of God, or inspiring us with good desires or tempers; whenever we mention the feeling his mighty power “work ing in us” according to his good pleasure; the general answer we have to expect is, “This is rank enthusiasm. So it was with the Apostles and first Christians. But only enthusiasts pretend to this now.” Thus all the Scriptures, abundance of which might be pro duced, are set aside at one stroke. And whoever cites them, as belonging to all Christians, is set down for an enthusiast. The first tract I have seen wrote expressly on this head, is remarkably entitled, “The Operations of the Holy Spirit im perceptible; and how Men may know when they are under the Guidance and Influence of the Spirit.” You begin: “As we have some among us who pretend to a more than ordinary guidance by the Spirit,” (indeed I do not; I pretend to no other guidance than is ordinarily given to all Christians,) “it may not be improper to discourse on the operations of God’s Holy Spirit.

The first tract I have seen wrote expressly on this head, is remarkably entitled, “The Operations of the Holy Spirit im perceptible; and how Men may know when they are under the Guidance and Influence of the Spirit.” You begin: “As we have some among us who pretend to a more than ordinary guidance by the Spirit,” (indeed I do not; I pretend to no other guidance than is ordinarily given to all Christians,) “it may not be improper to discourse on the operations of God’s Holy Spirit. “To this end be thou pleased, O gracious Fountain of Truth, to assist me with thy heavenly direction, in speaking of thee.” Alas, Sir, what need have you to speak any more? You have already granted all I desire, viz., that we may all now enjoy, and know that we do enjoy, the heavenly direction of God’s Spirit. However, you go on, and observe that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were granted to the first Christians only, but his ordinary graces to all Christians in all ages; both which you then attempt to enumerate; only suspending your discourse a little, when “some conceited enthusiasts” come in your way. 2. You next inquire, “after what manner these graces are raised in our souls;” and answer, “How to distinguish these heavenly motions from the natural operations of our minds, we have no light to discover; the Scriptures declaring, that the operations of the Holy Spirit are not subject to any sensible feelings or perceptions. For what communication can there be between feelings which are properties peculiar to matter, and the suggestions of the Spirit? All reasonable Christians believe that he works his graces in us in an imperceptible manner; and that there is no sensible difference between his and the natural operations of our minds.” I conceive this to be the strength of your cause. To support that conclusion, that the operations of the Spirit are impercep tible, you here allege, (1) “That all reasonable Christians believe this.” So you say; but I want proof. (2.) “That there can be no communications” (Ifear you mistook the word) “between the suggestions of the Spirit, and feelings which are properties peculiar to matter.” How ! Are the feelings now in question “properties peculiar to matter?” the feeling of peace, 78 A FAItTHER APPEAL TO MEN joy, love, or any feelings at all?

Are the feelings now in question “properties peculiar to matter?” the feeling of peace, 78 A FAItTHER APPEAL TO MEN joy, love, or any feelings at all? I can no more understand the philosophy than the divinity of this. (3.) “That the Scriptures declare the operations of the Spirit are not subject to any sensi ble feelings.” You are here disproving, as you suppose, a propo sition of mine. But are you sure you understand it? By feel ing, I mean, being inwardly conscious of. By the operations of the Spirit, I do not mean the manner in which he operates, but the graces which he operates in a Christian. Now, be pleased to produce those scriptures which declare that a Christian cannot feel or perceive these operations. 3. Are you not convinced, Sir, that you have laid to my charge things which I know not? I do not gravely tell you (as much an enthusiast as you over and over affirm me to be) that I sensibly feel (in your sense) the motions of the Holy Spirit. Much less do I make this, any more than “convulsions, agonies, howlings, roarings, and violent contortions of the body,” either “certain signs of men’s being in a state of sal vation,” or “necessary in order thereunto.” You might with equal justice and truth inform the world, and the worshipful the magistrates of Newcastle, that I make seeing the wind, or feeling the light, necessary to salvation. Neither do I confound the extraordinary with the ordinary operations of the Spirit. And as to your last inquiry, “What is the best proof of our being led by the Spirit P” I have no exception to that just and scriptural answer which you your self have given,-“A thorough change and renovation of mind and heart, and the leading a new and holy life.” 4. That I confound the extraordinary with the ordinary operations of the Spirit, and therefore am an enthusiast, is also strongly urged, in a charge delivered to his Clergy, and lately published, by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. An extract of the former part of this I subjoin, in his Lord ship’s words: “I cannot think it improper to obviate the contagion of those enthusiastical pretensions, that have lately betrayed whole mul titudes either into presumption or melancholy.

An extract of the former part of this I subjoin, in his Lord ship’s words: “I cannot think it improper to obviate the contagion of those enthusiastical pretensions, that have lately betrayed whole mul titudes either into presumption or melancholy. Enthusiasm, indeed, when detected, is apt to create infidelity; and infidelity is so shocking a thing, that many rather run into the other extreme, and take refuge in enthusiasm. But infidelity and enthusiasm seem now to act in concert against our established religion. As infidelity has been sufficiently opposed, I shall now lay before you the weakness of those enthusiastical pre tensions.” (Pp. 1, 2.) “Now, to confute effectually, and strike at the root of, those enthusiastical pretensions, “First, I shall show that it is necessary to lay down some method for distinguishing real from pretended inspiration.” (Pp. 3, 5.) “Many expressions occur in the New Testament concerning the operations of the Holy Spirit. But men of an enthusias tical temper have confounded passages of a quite different nature, and have jumbled together those that relate to the extraordinary operations of the Spirit, with those that relate only to his ordinary influences. It is therefore necessary to use some method for separating those passages relating to the operations of the Spirit, that have been so misapplied to the service of enthusiastical pretenders.” (Pp. 5-7.) “I proceed therefore to show, “Secondly, that a distinction is to be made between those passages of Scripture about the blessed Spirit that peculiarly belong to the primitive Church, and those that relate to Christians in all ages.” (P. 7.) “The exigences of the apostolical age required the miracu lous gifts of the Spirit. But these soon ceased. When there fore we meet in the Scripture with an account of those extra ordinary gifts, and likewise with an account of his ordinary operations, we must distinguish the one from the other. And that, not only for our own satisfaction, but as a means to stop the growth of enthusiasm.” (Pp. 8-10.) “And such a distinction ought to be made by the best methods of interpreting the Scriptures; which most certainly are an attentive consideration of the occasion and scope of those passages, in concurrence with the general sense of the primitive Church.” (P.

“And when he is come, he will reprove,” or convince, “the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: “Of sin, because they believe not on me; “Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; “Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. “I have yet many things to say unto you; but ye cannot bear them now: But when he shall come, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth; and he will show you things to come.” (xvi. 7-13.) There is only one sentence here which has not already been considered, “He will show you things to come.” And this, it is granted, relates to the gift of prophecy, one of the extraordinary operations of the Spirit. OF ftBASON AND RELIGION. 33 The general conclusion which your Lordship draws is expressed in these words: “Consequently, all pretensions to the Spirit, in the proper sense of the words of this promise, (that is, of these several texts of St. John,) are vain and insignificant, as they are claimed by modern enthusiasts.” And in the end of the same paragraph you add, “None but the ordinary operations of the Spirit are to be now expected, since those that are of a miraculous (or extraordinary) kind are not pretended to, even by modern enthusiasts.” My Lord, this is surprising. I read it over and over before I could credit my own eyes. I verily believe, this one clause, with unprejudiced persons, will be an answer to the whole book. You have been vehemently crying out all along against those enthusiastical pretenders; nay, the very design of your book, as you openly declare, was “to stop the growth of their enthusi asm; who have had the assurance” (as you positively affirm, page 6) “to claim to themselves the extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit.” And here you as positively affirm that those extraordinary operations “are not pretended to ” by them at all ! 8.

8. Yet your Lordship proceeds: “The next passage of Scrip ture I shall mention, as peculiarly belonging to the primitive times, though misapplied to the present state of Christians by modern enthusiasts, is what relates to the “testimony of the Spirit, and ‘praying by the Spirit, in the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.” (Page 16.) I believe it incumbent upon methoroughly to weigh the force of your Lordship's reasoning on this head. You begin: “After St. Paul had treated of that spiritual principle in Christians, which enables them “to mortify the deeds of the body, he says, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” This makes the distinction of a true Christian, particularly in opposition to the Jews.” I apprehend it is just here that your Lordship turns out of the way, when you say, “particularly in opposition to the Jews.” Such a particular opposition I cannot allow, till some stronger proof is produced, than St. Paul’s occa sionally mentioning, six verses before, “the imperfection of the Jewish law.” Yet your Lordship's mind is so full of this, that after repeat ing the fourteenth and fifteenth verses, “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father !” you add, “In the former part of this verse, the Apostle shows again the imperfection of the Jewish law.” This also calls for proof; otherwise it will not be allowed, that he here speaks of the Jew ish law at all; not, though we grant that “the Jews were sub ject to the fear of death, and lived, in consequence of it, in a state of bondage.” For are not all unbelievers, as well as the Jews, more or less, in the same fear and bondage? Your Lordship goes on : “In the latter part of the verse he shows the superiority of the Christian law to that of the Jews.” (P. 18.) Where is the proof, my Lord?

Your Lordship adds, “But what was the ground of this pre ference that was given to Christians? It was plainly the mira culous gifts of the Spirit, which they had, and which the Jews had not.” This preference given to Christians was just before expressed by their becoming the sons of God instead of the Jews. Were the gifts of the Spirit then the ground of this pre ference, the ground of their becoming the sons of God? What an assertion is this ! And how little is it mended, though I al low that “these miraculous gifts of the Spirit were a testimony that God acknowledged the Christians to be his people, and not the Jews;” since the Christians, who worked miracles, did it, not “by the works of the law,” but by “the hearing of faith !” Your Lordship concludes, “From these passages of St. Paul, compared together, it clearly follows, that the fore-men tioned testimony of the Spirit was the public testimony of miraculous gifts; and, consequently, the witness of the Spirit that we are the children of God, cannot possibly be applied to the private testimony of the Spirit given to our own con sciences, as is pretended by modern enthusiasts.” (P. 20.) If your conclusion, my Lord, will stand without the pre mises, it may; but that it has no manner of connexion with them, I trust does partly, and will more fully, appear, when we view the whole passage to which you refer; and I believe that passage, with very little comment, will prove, in direct oppo sition to that conclusion, that the testimony of the Spirit, there mentioned, is not the public testimony of miraculous gifts, but must be applied to the private testimony of the Spirit, given to our own consciences. 10. St. Paul begins the eighth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, with the great privilege of every Christian believer, (whether Jew or Gentile before,) “There is now no con demnation for them that are in Christ Jesus,” engrafted into him by faith, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For” now every one of them may truly say, “The law,” or power, “of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” given unto me for his sake, “hath made me free from the law,” or power, “of sin and death.

Therefore, bre thren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: But if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Verses 9-14.) Is there one word here, is there any the least intimation, of miraculous gifts, or of the Jewish law? It follows, “For ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear; ” such as all sinners have, when they are at first stirred up to seek God, and begin to serve him from a slavish fear of punishment; “but ye have received the Spirit. of adoption,” of free love, “whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself,” which God “hath sent forth into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father, beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” (Verses 15, 16.) I am now willing to leave it, without farther comment, to the judgment of every impartial reader, whether it does not. appear from the whole scope and tenor of the text and con text taken together, that this passage does not refer to the Jewish law, nor to the public testimony of miracles; neither of which can be dragged in without putting the utmost force on the natural meaning of the words. And if so, it will fol low, that this “witness of the Spirit” is the private testimony given to our own consciences; which, consequently, all sober Christians may claim, without any danger of enthusiasm. 11. “But I go on,” says your Lordship, “to the considera tion of the other passages in the same chapter, relating to our praying by the Spirit, namely, at verses 26 and 27, which run thus: “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: For we know not what we should pray for as we ought : But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh interces sion for the saints according to the will of God.’” (P. 21.) Here is a circumstance highly needful to be observed, be fore we enter upon this question. Your Lordship undertakes to fix the meaning of an expression used by St.

Your Lordship undertakes to fix the meaning of an expression used by St. Paul, in the fourteenth chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians. And in order thereto, you laboriously explain part of the eighth chapterof the Romans. My Lord, how is this? Will it be said, “Why, this is often alleged to prove the wrong sense of that scripture?” I conceive, this will not salve the matter at all. Your Lordship had before laid down a particular method, as the only sure one whereby to distinguish what scriptures belong to all Christians, and what do not. This method is, the considering the occasion and scope of those passages, by com paring the text and context together. You then propose, by the use of this method, to show, that several texts have been misapplied by enthusiasts. One of these is the fifteenth verse of the fourteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corin thians. And to show, that enthusiasts have misapplied this, you comment on the eighth chapter to the Romans ! However, let us weigh the comment itself. The material part of it begins thus: “Now he adds another proof of the truth of Christianity: “Likewise the Spirit helpeth our infirmities,” or our distresses, for aoréevetats signifies both.” (P. 22.) I doubt that: I require authority for it. “And then he mentions, in what instances he does so, viz., in prayers to God about afflictions.”--In nothing else, my Lord? Did he “help their infirmities” in no other instance than this? “‘We know not,’ says he, “what we should pray for as we ought.” That is, whether it be best for us to bear afflictions, or to be delivered from them. But the Spirit, or the gift of the Spirit, instructs us how to pray in a manner agreeable to the will of God.” “The Spirit, or the gift of the Spirit !” What marvellous reasoning is this? If these “are often put for each other,” what then? How is that evinced to be the case here? 12. “The Apostle goes on, ‘The Spirit itself maketh inter cession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.’ That is, the spiritual or inspired person prayed in that capacity for the whole assembly.” (P. 23.) “That is !” Nay, that is again the very point to be proved, else we get not one step farther.

Bened.) where his words are these :-- “‘When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, and he will teach you all things.’ The sum of all good things consists in this, that a man be found worthy to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, nothing will be accounted perfectin him who hath not the Holy Spirit.” Do these words confirm that “sense of those passages which your Lordship had assigned ?” Rather do they not utterly overturn it, and prove (as above) that although this promise of our Lord primarily belongs to the Apostles, yet, in the secondary sense, it belongs (according to Origen’s judgment) to all Christians in all ages? 17. The fourth text mentioned as belonging to the first Christians only, is Romans viii. 15, 16; and it is said, page 26, “This interpretation is confirmed by the authority of the most eminent fathers.” The reader is particularly referred to Origen and Jerome in locum. But here seems to be a mistake of the name. Jerome in locum should mean, Jerome upon the place, upon Romans viii. 15, 16. But I cannot perceive that there is one word upon that place, in all St. Jerome's Works. Nor indeed has Origen commented upon it any more than Jerome. But he occasionally mentions it in these words:-- “He is a babe who is fed with milk; but if he seeks the things that are above, without doubt he will be of the number of those who “receive not the spirit of bondage again unto fear, but the Spirit of adoption, through whom they cry, ‘Abba, Father.’” (Vol. i., p. 79.) Again: “The fulness of time is come; when they who are willing receive the adoption, as Paul teaches in these words, ‘Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!’ And it is written in the Gospel according to St. John, ‘To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to then that believe in his name.’” (Vol. i., pp.

i., pp. 231, 232.) Yet again: “Every one that is born of God, and doth not commit sin, by his very actions saith, “Our Father which art in heaven; ‘the Spirit itself bearing witness with their spirit, that they are the children of God.’” (Ibid.) According to Origen, therefore, this testimony of the Spirit is not any public testimony by miracles, peculiar to the first times, but an inward testimony, belonging in common to all that are born of God; and consequently the authority of Origen does not “confirm that interpretation” neither, but absolutely destroys it. 18. The last authority your Lordship appeals to on this text is, “that of the great John Chrysostom, who reckons the testimony of the Spirit of adoption by which we cry, ‘Abba, Father, among the miraculous gifts of the Spirit.” “I rather choose” (your Lordship adds, p. 26) “to refer you to the words of St. Chrysostom, than to transcribe them here, as having almost translated them in the present account of the testimony of the Spirit.” However, I believe it will not be labour lost to transcribe a few of those words. It is in his comment on the fourteenth verse, that he first mentions St. Paul’s comparison between a Jew and a Chris tian. How fairly your Lordship has represented this, let every reader judge:- “‘As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”--Whereas the same title had been given of old to the Jews also, he shows in the sequel, how great a difference there is between that honour and this. For though, says he, the titles are the same, yet the things are not. And he plainly proves it, by comparing both what they had received, and what they looked for. And first he shows what they had received, viz., a ‘spirit of bondage. Therefore he adds, “Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption.’ What means the spirit of fear?-Observe their whole life, and you will know clearly. For punishments were at their heels, and much fear was on every side, and before their face. But with us it is not so.

But with us it is not so. For our mind and conscience are cleansed, so that we do all things well, not for fear of present punishment, but through our love of God, and an habit of virtue. They therefore, though they were called sons, yet were as slaves; but we, being made free, have received the adoption, and look not for a land of milk and honey, but for heaven. “He brings also another proof, that we have the Spirit of adoption, by which, says he, we cry, ‘Abba, Father. This is the first word we utter ueta tas 6avuaatas obvas exceivas, scal Tov £evov cat Trapabokov Xoxevuatov voluov; after those amazing throes, (or birth-pangs,) and that strange and won derful manner of bringing forth. “He brings yet another proof of the superiority of those who had this Spirit of adoption: ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.' I prove this, says he, not only from the voice itself, but also from the cause whence that voice proceeds: For the Spirit suggests the words while we thus speak, which he hath elsewhere expressed more plainly, ‘God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father!’ But what is, ‘The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit?” He means, the Paraclete by the gift given unto us.” (But that this was an extraordinary gift, we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after.) “And when ‘the Spirit beareth witness, what doubt is left? If a man or an angel spake, some might doubt; but when the Most High beareth witness to us, who can doubt any longer?” Now let any reasonable man judge how far your Lordship has “translated the words of St. Chrysostom; and whether he reckons the testimony of the Spirit among the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost,” or among those ordinary gifts of the Spirit of Christ which if a man have not he is none of his. 19. The fifth text your Lordship quotes, as describing a miraculous gift of the Spirit, is 1 Cor. xiv.

xiv. 15: To prove which, you comment on the eighth chapter to the Romans, particularly the twenty-sixth verse; and here again it is said, that “the interpretation assigned is confirmed by several of the most eminent fathers, more especially the great John Chrysostom, as well as by Origen and Jerome upon the place.” I cannot find St. Jerome to have writ one line upon the place. And it is obvious, that St. Chrysostom supposes the whole con text from the seventeenth to the twenty-fifth verse, torelate to all Christians in all ages. How this can be said to “confirm the interpretation assigned,” I cannot conjecture. Nay, it is remark able, that he expounds the former part of the twenty-sixth verse as describing the ordinary privilege of all Christians. Thus far, therefore, he does not confirm but overthrow, the “interpre tation before assigned.” But in the middle of the verse he breaks off, and expounds the latter part, as describing one of the miraculous gifts. Yet I must do the justice to this venerable man to observe, he does not suppose that a miraculous gift was given, only that the inspired might do what any ordinary Christian might have done without it; (this interpretation, even of the latter part of the verse, he does in nowise confirm;) but that he might ask, in every particular circumstance, the determinate thing which it was the will of God to give. 20. The third father by whom it is said this interpretation is confirmed, is Origen. The first passage of his, which relates to Rom. viii. 26, runs thus: “Paul, perceiving how far he was, after all these things, from knowing to pray for what he ought, as he ought, says, “We know not what we should pray for as we ought. But he adds, whence, what is wanting may be had by one who indeed does not know, but labours to be found worthy of having the defect. supplied. For he says, “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought. But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered.

But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit; because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God.” The Spirit which crieth, ‘Abba, Father, in the hearts of the saints, knowing well our groanings in this tabernacle, “maketh intercession for us to God, with groanings which cannot be uttered.’ To the same effect is that Scripture: ‘I will pray with the Spirit, I will pray with the understanding also.” (1 Cor. xiv. 15. For our understanding (or mind, o vows) cannot pray, if the Spirit do not pray before it, and the understanding, as it were, listen to it.” (Vol. i., p. 199.) Again: “I would know how the saints cry to God without a voice. The Apostle shows, ‘God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father !’ and he adds, “The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered.’ And again, “He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God.” Thus, therefore, the Spirit making intercession for us with God, the cry of the saints is heard without a voice.” (Vol. ii., p. 146.) Once more in his Homily on Joshua : “Jesus our Lord doth not forsake us; but although when we would pray, “we know not what to pray for as we ought,’ yet ‘the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groan ings which cannot be uttered. Now the Lord is that Spirit: ” The Spirit assists our prayers, and offers them to God with groanings which we cannot express in words.” (Vol. ii., p. 419.) I believe all rational men will observe from hence, that Origen is so far from confirming, that he quite overturns, your Lordship’s interpretation of the sixteenth as well as the twenty-sixth verse of this chapter; seeing, in his judgment, both that testimony of the Spirit and this prayer belong to all Christians in all ages. 21. The sixth scripture which your Lordship has undertaken to show “relates only to the apostolical times,” is 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. And “this interpretation also,” it is said, “is confirmed by the authority of Chrysostom, Origen, and other ancient writers.” (P.

I cannot perceive that he interprets it at all “of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit.” His words are, “The Holy Spirit is called, and is, the unction and the seal. For John writes, ‘The anointing which ye have received of him, abideth in you; and ye need not that any man should teach you, but as his anointing, his Spirit, “teacheth you of all things' Again : It is written in the Prophet Isaiah, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me.’ And Paul writes thus: “In whom also ye were sealed.’ And again: ‘Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” This anointing is the breath of the Son; so that he who hath the Spirit may say, ‘We are the sweet smelling savour of Christ. Because we are par takers of the Holy Spirit, we have the Son; and having the Son, we have ‘the Spirit crying in our hearts, Abba, Father.’” And so in his Oration against the Arians:-- “‘He sendeth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” His Son in us, invoking the Father, makes him to be called our Father. Certainly God cannot be called their Father, who have not the Son in their hearts.” Is it not easy to be observed here, (1.) That Athanasius makes “that testimony of the Spirit” common to all the children of God: (2.) That he joins “the anointing of the Holy One,” with that seal of the Spirit wherewith all that persevere are “sealed to the day of redemption:” And, (3.) That he does not, through out this passage, speak of the extraordinary gifts at all? Therefore, upon the whole, the sense of the primitive Church, so far as it can be gathered from the authors above cited, is, that “although some of the scriptures primarily refer to those extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which were given to the Apos tles, and a few other persons in the apostolical age; yet they refer also, in a secondary sense, to those ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit which all the children of God do and will experience, even to the end of the world.” 23.

Therefore, upon the whole, the sense of the primitive Church, so far as it can be gathered from the authors above cited, is, that “although some of the scriptures primarily refer to those extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which were given to the Apos tles, and a few other persons in the apostolical age; yet they refer also, in a secondary sense, to those ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit which all the children of God do and will experience, even to the end of the world.” 23. What I mean by the ordinary operations of the Holy Ghost, I sum up in the words of a modern writer:-- “Sanctification being opposed to our corruption, and answer ing fully to the latitude thereof, whatsoever of holiness and per fection is wanting in our nature must be supplied by the Spirit of God. Wherefore, being by nature we are totally void of all saving truth, and under an impossibility of knowing the will of God, this ‘Spirit searcheth all things, yea, even the deep things of God,” and revealeth them unto the sons of men, so that thereby the darkness of their understanding is expelled, and they are enlightenéd with the knowledge of God. The same Spirit which revealeth the object of faith generally to the universal Church, doth also illuminate the understanding of such as believe, that they may receive the truth. For ‘faith is the gift of God, not only in the object, but also in the act. And this gift is a gift of the Holy Ghost working within us.-- And as the increase of perfection, so the original of faith, is from the Spirit of God, by an internal illumination of the soul.” “The second part of the office of the Holy Ghost, is the renewing of man in all the parts and faculties of his soul. For our natural corruption consisting in an aversation of our wills, and a depravation of our affections, an inclination of them to the will of God is wrought within us by the Spirit of God. “The third part of this office is, to lead, direct, and govern usin our actions and conversations. “If we live in the Spirit,” quickened by his renovation, we must also ‘walk in the Spirit,” following his direction, led by his manuduction.

“If we live in the Spirit,” quickened by his renovation, we must also ‘walk in the Spirit,” following his direction, led by his manuduction. We are also animated and acted by the Spirit of God, who giveth ‘both to will and to do: And ‘as many as are’ thus ‘led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God.” (Rom. viii. 14.) Moreover, that this direction may prove more effectual, we are guided in our prayers by the same Spirit; according to the promise, ‘I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplication.” (Zech. xii. 10.) Whereas then ‘this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us;” and whereas ‘we know not what we should pray for as we ought, the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered;’ and “he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God.” (Rom. viii.27.) From which intercession,” (made for all true Christians,) “he hath the name of the Paraclete given him by Christ, who said, ‘I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete.” (John xiv. 16,26.)‘For if any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,” saith St. John; ‘who maketh inter cession for us,” saith St. Paul. (Rom. viii. 34.) And we have ‘another Paraclete,” saith our Saviour; (John xiv. 16;) ‘which also maketh intercession for us,” saith St. Paul. (Rom. viii. 27.) A Paraclete, then, in the notion of the Scriptures, is an intercessor. “It is also the office of the Holy Ghost, to “assure us of the adoption of sons,’ to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God towards us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inherit ance.

“It is also the office of the Holy Ghost, to “assure us of the adoption of sons,’ to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God towards us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inherit ance. ‘The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given untous.’ ‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” “And because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.’ ‘For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father; the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” (Verses 15, 16.) “As, therefore, we are born again by the Spirit, and receive from him our regeneration, so we are also by the same Spirit - assured of our adoption.” Because, being ‘sons, we are also heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, by the same ‘Spirit we have the pledge, or rather the ‘earnest, of our inherit ance.” For ‘he which establishethus in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of his Spirit in our hearts:’ So that “we are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inherit ance. The Spirit of God, as given unto us in this life, is to be looked upon as an earnest, being part of that reward which is promised, and, upon performance of the covenant which God hath made with us, certainly to be received.” Your Lordship observed, that “the interpretation of those passages which relate to the ‘unction from the Holy One,” depends on the sense of those other passages of Holy Scripture, particularly those in St. John’s Gospel.” Now, if so, then these words fix the sense of six out of the seven texts in question; and every one of them, in the judgment of this writer, describes the ordinary gifts bestowed on all Christians. It now rests with your Lordship to take your choice; either to condemn or to acquit both.

This is not the result of our matural understanding. “The natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God:” So that we never can discern them, until God “reveals them unto us by his Spirit.” Reveals, that is, unveils, uncovers; gives us to know what we did not know before. Have we love? It “is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” He inspires, breathes, infuses into our soul, what of ourselves we could not have. Does our spirit rejoice in God our Saviour? It is “joy in,” or by, “the Holy Ghost.” Have we true inward peace? It is “the peace of God,” wrought in us by the same Spirit. Faith, peace, joy, love, are all his fruits. And as we are figuratively said to see the light of faith; so, by a like figure of speech, we are said to feel this peace and joy and love; that is, we have an inward experience of them, which we cannot find any fitter word to express. The reasons why, in speaking of these things, I use those terms, (inspiration particularly,) are, (1.) Because they are scriptural: (2.) Because they are used by our Church : (3.) Because I know none better. The word, “influence of the Holy Ghost,” which I suppose you use, is both a far stronger and a less natural term than inspiration. It is far stronger; even as far as “flowing into the soul” is a stronger expression than “breathing upon it;”--and less natural, as breathing bears a near relation to spirit; to which flowing in has only a distant relation. But you thought I had meant “immediate inspiration.” So I do, or I mean nothing at all. Not indeed such inspiration as is sine mediis. But all inspiration, though by means, is imme diate. Suppose, for instance, you are employed in private prayer, and God pours his love into your heart. God then acts immediately on your soul; and the love of him which you then experience, is as immediately breathed into you by the Holy Ghost, as if you had lived seventeen hundred years ago. Change the term: Say, God then assists you to love him. Well, and is not this immediate assistance 2 Say, His Spirit concurs with yours. You gain no ground. It is immediate con currence, or none at all.

It is immediate con currence, or none at all. God, a Spirit, acts upon your spirit. Make it out any otherwise if you can. I cannot conceive how that harmless word immediate came to be such a bugbear in the world: “Why, I thought you meant such inspiration as the Apostles had; and such a receiving the Holy Ghost as that was at the day of Pentecost.” I do, in part: Indeed I do not mean, that Christians now receive the Holy Ghost in order to work miracles; but they do doubtless now “receive,” yea, are “filled with, the Holy Ghost,” in order to be filled with the fruits of that blessed Spirit. And he inspires into all true believers now, a degree of the same peace and joy and love which the Apostles felt in themselves on that day, when they were first “filled with the Holy Ghost.” 29. I have now considered the most material objections I know, which have been lately made against the great doctrines I teach. I have produced, so far as in me lay, the strength of those objections, and then answered them, I hope, in the spirit of meekness. And now I trust it appears, that these doctrines. are no other than the doctrines of Jesus Christ; that they are all evidently contained in the word of God, by which alone I desire to stand or fall; and that they are fundamentally the same with the doctrines of the Church of England, of which I do, and ever did, profess myself a member. But there remains one objection, which, though relating to the head of doctrine, yet is independent on all that went before. And that is, “You cannot agree in your doctrines among yourselves. One holds one thing, and one another. Mr. Whitefield anathematizes Mr. Wesley; and Mr. Wesley anathematizes Mr. Whitefield. And yet each pretends to be led by the Holy Ghost, by the infallible Spirit of God! Every reasonable man must conclude from hence, that neither one nor the other is led by the Spirit.” I need not say, how continually this has been urged, both in common conversation and from the press: (I am grieved to add, and from the pulpit too; for, if the argument were good, it would overturn the Bible:) Nor, how great stress has been continually laid upon it.

No more than you believe he had eighty millions. Is not all this talk of danger mere finesse, thrown in purely ad movendam invi diam ** You know governments generally are suspicious; *To excite ill-will.-EDIT. especially in the time of war; and therefore apply, as you sup pose, to their weak side; in hopes, if possible, to deliver over these heretics to the secular arm. However, I will answer as if you spoke from your heart: For I am in earnest, if you are not. (1.) “The Preacher cannot know a tenth part of his congre gation.” Let us come to the present state of things. The largest congregations that now attend the preaching of any Methodist, are those (God be merciful to me!) that attend mine. And cannot I know a tenth part of one of these congre gations, either at Bristol, Kingswood, Newcastle, or London? As strange as it may seem, I generally know two-thirds of the congregation in every place, even on Sunday evening, and nine in ten of those who attend at most other times. (2.) “All people may come and carry on what designs they will.” Not so. All field-preaching is now in the open day. And were only ten persons to come to such an assembly with arms, it would soon be inquired, with what design they came. This is therefore, (3.) No “great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.” And if ever any disturbance. has been raised, it was quite of another kind. : The public, then, is entirely safe, if it be in no other danger than arises from field-preaching. 7. There is one other sentence belonging to this head, in the eighth section of the “Observations.” “Thereligious societies,” you say, “in London and Westminster, for many years past, have received no discouragements, but, on the contrary, have been countenanced and encouraged both by the Bishops and Clergy.” How is this? Have they then “qualified themselves and places of their assembling, according to the Act of Tolera tion?” Have they “embraced the protection which that Act might give them, in case they complied with the conditions. of it?” If not, are they not all “liable to the penalties of the several statutes made before that time against unlawful assemblies?” How can they escape?

But in other instances, where those convictions sink deep, and the arrows of the Almighty stick fast in the soul, you will drive the person into real, settled madness, before you can quench the Spirit of God. I am afraid there have been several instances of this. You have forced the man’s conscience, till he is stark mad. But then, pray do not impute that madness to me. Had you left him to my direction, or rather to the direction of the Spirit of God, he would have been filled with love and a sound mind. But you have taken the matter out of God’s hand; and now you have brought it to a fair conclusion | 16. How frequent this case maybe, I know not. But doubt less most of those who make this objection, of our driving men mad, have never met with such an instance in their lives. The common cry is occasioned, either by those who are convinced of sin, or those who are inwardly converted to God; mere madness both, (as was observed before,) to those who are without God in the world. Yet I do not deny, but you may have seen one in Bedlam, who said he had followed me. But observe, a mad man's saying this, is no proof of the fact; nay, and if he really had, it should be farther considered, that his being in Bedlam is no sure proof of his being mad. Witness the well-known case of Mr. Periam; and I doubt more such are to be found. Yea, it is well if some have not been sent thither, for no other reason, but because they followed me; their kind relations either concluding that they must be distracted, before they could do this; or, perhaps, hoping that Bedlam would make them mad, if it did not find them so. 17.

For still, “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,” whatever he desires, “he is none of his.” O my brother, beware you stop not short! Beware you never account yourself a Christian, no, not in the lowest degree, till God “hath sent forth the Spirit of Christ into your heart;” and that “Spirit bear witness with your spirit, that you are a child of God.” 3. One step farther from us, are you who are called (though not by your own choice) Anabaptists. The smallness of your number, compared to that of either the Presbyteri ans, or those of the Church, makes it easier for you to have an exact knowledge of the behaviour of all your members, and to put away from among you every one that “walketh not according to the doctrine you have received.” But is this done? Do all your members adorn the gospel? Are they all “holy as He which hath called us is holy?” I fear not. I have known some instances to the contrary; and doubtless you know many more. There are unholy, out wardly unholy men in your congregations also; men that profane either the name or the day of the Lord; that do not honour their natural or civil parents; that know not how to possess their bodies in sanctification and honour; that are in temperate, either in meat or drink, gluttonous, sensual, luxu rious; that variously offend against justice, mercy, or truth, in their intercourse with their neighbour, and do not walk by that royal law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” But how is this consistent with your leading principle,-- “That no man ought to be admitted to baptism, till he has that repentance whereby we forsake sin, and living faith in God through Christ?” For if no man ought to be admitted into a church or con gregation, who has not actual faith and repentance; then neither ought any who has them not, to continue in any con gregation: And, consequently, an open sinner cannot remain amongyou, unless you practically renounceyour main principle. 4. I refer it to your own serious consideration, whether one reason why unholy men are still suffered to remain among you may not be this,--That many of you have unawares put opinion in the room of faith and repentance? But how fatal a mistake is this !

I pray, consider. Do you never compli ment? I do not suppose you say, “Sir, your very humble ser vant;” but do you say no civil things? Do you never flatter? Do you not commend any man or woman to their face? Per haps farther than you do behind their back. Is this plainness of speech? Do you never dissemble? Do you speak to all per sons, high or low, rich or poor, just what you think, neither more nor less, and in the shortest and clearest manner you can P If not, what a mere jest is your plain language! You carry your condemnation in your own breast. 6. You hold also, that “he which is led by the Spirit will use great plainness of dress, seeking no “outward adorning,” but only the ‘ornament of a meek and quiet spirit;” and that, in particular, “he will leave ‘gold and costly apparel” to those who know not God.” Now, I appeal to every serious, reasonable man among you, --Do your people act consistently with this principle? Do not many of your women wear gold upon their very feet; and many of your men use “ ornaments of gold?” Are you a stranger to these things? Have you not seen with your eyes (such trifles as will scarce bear the naming) their canes and snuff-boxes glit ter, even in your solemn assembly, while ye were waiting toge ther upon God? Surely, they are not yet so lost to modesty, as to pretend that they do not use them by way of ornament. If they do not, if it be only out of necessity, a plain oaken stick will supply the place of the one, and a piece of horn or tin will unexceptionably answer all the reasonable ends of the other.- To speak freely, (and do not count me your enemy for this,) you cannot but observe, upon cool reflection, that you retain just so much of your ancient practice, as leaves your present without excuse; as makes the inconsistency, between the one and the other, glaring and undeniable. For instance: This woman is too strict a Quaker to lay out a shilling in a necklace. Very well; but she is not too strict to lay out fourscore guineas in a repeating watch.

Thou art to “speak, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.” To say the very truth, I am afraid you rather strengthen their hands in their wicked ness. For you not only do not testify against it in the con gregation,” but even sit at their table and reprove them not. Why, then, thou also art one of “the dumb dogs that cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.” I fix this charge upon every Preacher, in particular, who saw a young woman, daughter to one of the Quakers in London, going to be married in apparel suitable to her diamond buckle, which cost a hundred guineas. Could you see this, and not call heaven and earth to witness against it? Then I witness against thee, in the name of the Lord, thou art a blind leader of the blind; thou “strainest a gnat, and swallowest a camel !” Verily, the sin both of teachers and hearers is herein exceed ing great. And the little attempts towards plainness of apparel, which are still observable among you, (I mean, in the colour and form of your clothes, and the manner of putting them on,) only testify against you, that you were once what you know in your hearts you are not now. 8. I come now to your main principle: “We are all to be “taught of God, to be inspired and “led by his Spirit: And then we shall ‘worship him, not with dead form, but ‘in spirit and in truth.” These are deep and weighty words; but many hold fast the words, and are utterly ignorant of their meaning. Is not this * You say you do testify against it in the congregation. Against what? “Against gay and gaudy apparel.” I grant it. But this is not the thing I speak of You quite mistake my mark. Do you testify against the costliness of their apparel, however plain and grave it may be? against the price of the velvet, the linen, the silk, or raiment of whatever kind? If you do this frequently and explicitly, you are clear. If not, own and amend the fault. It is easy to discern how your people fell into this snare of the devil. You were at first a poor, despised, afflicted people.

What saith thy heart? Does God dwell therein? And doth it now echo to the voice of God? Hast thou the continual inspiration of his Spirit, filling thy heart with his love, as with a well of water, springing up into everlasting life? 9. Art thou acquainted with the “leading of his Spirit,” not by notion only, but by living experience? I fear very many of you talk of this, who do not so much as know what it means. How does the Spirit of God lead his children to this or that particular action? Do you imagine it is by blind impulse only? by moving you to do it, you know not why? Not so. He leads us by our eye, at least, as much as by the hand; and by light as well as by heat. He shows us the way wherein we should go, as well as incites us to walk therein. For example: Here is a man ready to perish with hunger. How am I “led by the Spirit” to relieve him? First, by His convincing me it is the will of God I should; and Secondly, by His filling my heart with love toward him. Both this light and this heat are the gift of God; are wrought in me by the same Spirit, who leads me, by this conviction as well as love, to go and feed that man. This is the plain, rational account of the ordinary leading of the Spirit; but how far from that which some have given I Art thou thus led by the Spirit to every good word and work, till God hath thereby made thy faith perfect? Dost thou know what faith is? It is a loving, obedient sight of a pre sent and reconciled God. Now, where this is, there is no dead form; neither can be, so long as it continues. But all that is said or done is full of God, full of spirit, and life, and power. 10. But perhaps, as much as you talk of them, you do not know the difference between form and spirit; or between worshipping God in a formal way, and worshipping him “in spirit and in truth.” The Lord is that Spirit. The seeing and feeling and lov ing him is spiritual life.

Well may you shudder at the thought ! more especially when you are about to enter on that untried state of existence. For what a prospect is this, when you stand on the verge of life, ready to launch out into etermity! What can you then think? You see nothing before you. All is dark and dreary. On the very best supposition, how well may you address your parting soul in the words of dying Adrian: Poor, little, pretty, fluttering thing, Must we no longer live together? And dost thou prune thy trembling wing, To take thy flight thou know'st not whither?' Thy pleasing vein, thy humorous folly Is all neglected, all forgot; And pensive, wavering, melancholy, Thou hop'st and fear'st thou know'st not what. “Thou know'st not what l” Here is the sting, suppose there were no other. To be “thou know'st not what !” not for a month, or a year, but through the countless ages of eternity What a tormenting uncertainty must this be What racking unwillingness must it occasion, to exchange even this known vale of tears for the unknown valley of the shadow of death ! And is there no cure for this? Indeed there is an effectual cure; even the knowledge and love of God. There is a know ledge of God which unveils etermity, and a love of God which endears it. That knowledge makes the great abyss visible; and all uncertainty vanishes away. That love makes it amiable to the soul, so that fear has no more place | But the moment God says, by the welcome angel of death, “Come thou up hither l’” she Claps the glad wing, and towers away, And mingles with the blaze of day. 20. See ye not what advantage every way a Christian has * Some to the piercing winds are stretch'd abroad; Some plunged beneath the watery gulf: The fire In some burns out the deep-imprinted stain, Till the long course of slowly-rolling years Has purged out every spot, and pure remains The ethereal spirit, and simple heavenly fire. over you? Probably the reason you saw it not before was, because you knew none but nominal Christians; men who professed to believe more, (in their way of believing,) but had no more of the knowledge or love of God than yourselves: So that with regard to real, inward religion, you stood upon even ground.

O leave that to those blind zealots who tack together a set of opinions and an outside worship, and call this poor, dull, lifeless thing by the sacred name of Chris tianity | Well might you account such Christianity as this a mere piece of empty pageantry, fit indeed to keep the vulgar in awe, but beneath the regard of a man of understanding. But in how different a light does it now appear ! If there be such a religion as I have sketched out, must not every reasonable man see there is nothing on earth to be desired in comparison of it? But if any man desire this, let him ask of God; he giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not. 24. May you not ask, quite consistently with your principles, in some manner resembling this? “O thou Being of beings, thou cause of all, thou seest my heart; thou understandest all my thoughts: But how small a part of thy ways do I understand l I know not what is above, beneath, on every side; I know not my own soul. Only this I know, I am not what I ought to be. I see and approve the virtue which I have not. I do not, love thee, neither am I thankful. I commend the love of mankind; but I feel it not. Thou hast seen hatred, malice, envy in my heart; thou hast seen anger, murmuring, discontent. These uneasy passions harrow up my soul. I cannot rest while I am under this yoke; nor am I able to shake it off; I am unhappy, and that thou knowest. “Have compassion upon me, thou whose years do not fail! on me who have but a short time to live. I rise up, and am cut down as a flower. I flee as it were a shadow. Yet a little while and I return to dust, and have no more place under the sun. “Yet I know thou hast made my soul to live for ever; but I know not where, and I am unwilling to try. I tremble, I am afraid to go thither, whence I shall not return. I stand quivering on the edge of the gulf; for clouds and darkness rest upon it. O God!

Let the instances, if there are such, be produced. But if no such are to be found, then let all reasonable men, who believe the Bible, own that a work of God is wrought in our land; and such a work (if we survey in one view the extent of it, the swiftness with which it has spread, the depth of that religion which was so swiftly diffused, and its purity from all corrupt mixtures) as, it must be acknowledged, cannot easily be paralleled, in all these con current circumstances, by any thing that is found in the Eng lish annals, since Christianity was first planted in this island. II. 1. And yet those who “can discern the face of the sky, cannot discern the signs of the times.” Yet those who are esteemed wise men do not know that God is now reviving his work upon earth. Indeed, concerning some of these, the rea son is plain: They know not, because they think not of it. Their thoughts are otherwise employed; their minds are taken up with things of quite a different nature: Or, perhaps, they may think of it a little now and then, when they have nothing else to do; but not seriously or deeply; not with any closeness or attention of thought. They are too much in haste, to weigh the facts whereof we speak, and to draw the just inference therefrom : Nor is the conviction which they may sometimes feel, suffered to sink into their hearts; but things that have a larger share in their affections soon destroy the very traces of it. 2. True it is, that there are some who think more deeply, who are accustomed to consider things from the foundation, and to lay circumstances together, that they may judge of nothing before they have full evidence; and yet even some of these appear to be in doubt concerning the present work. Now, supposing it to be a work of God, how can this be accounted for, -that they who so diligently inquire concerning it, do not know the time of their visitation? Perhaps because of the deeply rooted prejudice which they brought with them to the inquiry; and which, still hanging on their minds, makes it scarce possible for them to form an impartial judgment.

And I am bold to affirm, that these unlettered men have help from God for that great work,-the saving souls from death; seeing he hath enabled, and doth enable them still, to “turn many to righteousness.” Thus hath he “destroyed the wisdom of the wise, and brought to nought the understanding of the prudent.” When they imagined they had effectually shut the door, and locked up every passage whereby any help could come to two or three Preachers, weak in body as well as soul, who they might reasonably believe would, humanly speaking, wear themselves out in a short time;--when they had gained their point by securing, as they supposed, all the men of learn ing in the nation, “He that sitteth in heaven laughed them to scorn,” and came upon them by a way they thought not of. “Out of the stones he raised up ’’ those who should beget “children to Abraham.” We had no more foresight of this than you: Nay, we had the deepest prejudices against it; until we could not but own that God gave “wisdom from above ’’ to these unlearned and ignorant men, so that the work of the Lord prospered intheir hand, and sinners were daily converted to God. Indeed, in the one thing which they profess to know, they are not ignorant men. I trust there is not one of them who is not able to go through such an examination, in substantial, prac tical, experimental Divinity, as few of our candidates for holy orders, even in the University, (I speak it with sorrow and shame, and in tender love,) are able to do. But, O! what man ner of examination do most of those candidates go through! and what proof are the tesimonials commonly brought, (as solemn as the form is wherein they run,) either of their piety or know ledge to whom are entrusted those sheep which God hath purchased with his own blood | 11. “But they are laymen. You seem to be sensible your self of the strength of this objection. For as many as you have answered, I observe you have never once so much as touched on this.” I have not. Yet it was not distrust of my cause, but tender ness to you, which occasioned my silence.

Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is by the testi mony of competent witnesses; and these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. Or, would you have us prove by miracles, (4.) That this was not done by our own power or holiness? that God only is able to raise the dead, those who are dead in trespasses and sins? Nay, if you “hear not Moses and the Prophets” and Apostles, on this head, neither would you believe, “though one rose from the dead.” It is therefore utterly unreasonable and absurd to require or expect the proof of miracles, in questions of such a kind as are always decided by proofs of quite another nature. 29. “But you relate them yourself.” I relate just what I saw, from time to time: And this is true, that some of those circumstances seem to go beyond the ordinary course of nature. But I do not peremptorily determine, whether they were supernatural or no; much less do I rest upon them either the proof of other facts, or of the doctrines which I preach. I prove these in the ordinary way; the one by testimony, the other by Scripture and reason. “But if you can work miracles when you please, is not this the surest way of proving them? This would put the matter out of dispute at once, and supersede all other proof.” You seem to lie under an entire mistake, both as to the nature and use of miracles. It may reasonably be questioned, whether there ever was that man living upon earth, except the man Christ Jesus, that could work miracles when he pleased. God only, when he pleased, exerted that power, and by whomsoever it pleased him. But if a man could work miracles when he pleased, yet there is no Scripture authority, nor even example, for doing it in order to satisfy such a demand as this. I do not read that either our Lord, or any of his Apostles, wrought any miracle on such an occasion.

I do not read that either our Lord, or any of his Apostles, wrought any miracle on such an occasion. Nay, how sharply does our Lord rebuke those who made a demand of this kind ' When “certain of the Scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee;” (observe, this was their method of answering the strong reasons whereby he had just proved the works in question to be of God!) “he answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; but there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the Pro phet Jonas.” (Matt. xii. 38, 39.) “An evil and adulterous generation l’” else they would not have needed such a kind of proof. Had they been willing to do his will, they would, without this, have known that the doctrine was of God. Miracles, therefore, are quite needless in such a case. Nor are they so conclusive a proof as you imagine. If a man could and did work them in defence of any doctrine, yet this would not supersede other proof; for there may be tepata \revôovs, “lying wonders,” miracles wrought in support of falsehood. Still, therefore, his doctrine would remain to be proved from the proper topics of Scripture and reason: And these even without miracles are sufficient; but miracles without these are not. Accordingly, our Saviour and all his Apostles, in the midst of their greatest miracles, never failed to prove every doctrine they taught by clear Scripture and cogent reason. 30. I presume, by this time you may perceive the gross absurdity of demanding miracles in the present case; seeing one of the propositions in question, (over and above our gene ral doctrines) viz., “That sinners are reformed,” can only be proved by testimony; and the other, “This cannot be done but by the power of God,” necds no proof, being self-evident. “Why, I did once myself rejoice to hear,” says a grave citi zen, with an air of great importance, “that so many sinners were reformed, till I found they were only turned from one wickedness to another; that they were turned from cursing or swearing, or drunkenness, into a mo less damnable sin, that of schism.” Do you know what you say?

Think of this, all that love your country, or that care for your own souls. If now especially you do not think of this one thing, you have no excuse before God or man. 5. Little more excuse have you who are still in doubt con cerning this day of your visitation. For you have all the proof that you can reasonably expect or desire, all that the nature of the thing requires. That in many places, abundance of noto rious sinners are totally reformed, is declared by a thousand eye and ear witnesses both of their present and past behaviour. And you are sensible, the proof of such a point as this must, in the nature of things, rest upon testimony. And that God alone is able to work such areformation, you know all the Scrip tures testify. What would you have more? What pretence can you have for doubting any longer? You have not the least room to expect or desire any other or any stronger evidence. I trust you are not of those who fortify themselves against conviction; who are resolved they will never believe this. They ask, “Who are these men?” We tell them plainly; but they credit us not. Another and another of their own friends is convinced, and tells them the same thing. But their answer is ready, “Are you turned Methodist too?” So their testimony likewise goes for nothing. Now, how is it possible these should ever be convinced? for they will believe none but those who speak on one side. 6. Do you delay fixing your judgment till you see a work of God, without any stumbling-block attending it? That never was yet, nor ever will. “It must needs be that offences will come.” And scarce ever was there such a work of God before, with so few as have attended this. When the Reformation began, what mountainous offences lay in the way of even the sincere members of the Church of Rome! They saw such failings in those great men, Luther and Calvin Their vehement tenaciousness of their own opinions; their bitterness toward all who differed from them; their impatience of contradiction, and utter want of forbear ance, even with their own brethren.

5. Can we know one who is thus saved? What is a rea sonable proof of it? A. We cannot, without the miraculous discernment of spirits, be infallibly certain of those who are thus saved. But we apprehend, these would be the best proofs which the nature of the thing admits: (1) If we had sufficient evidence of their unblamable behaviour preceding. (2.) If they gave a dis tinct account of the time and manner wherein they were saved from sin, and of the circumstances thereof, with such sound speech as could not be reproved. And, (3.) If, upon a strict inquiry afterwards from time to time, it appeared that all their tempers, and words, and actions, were holy and unreprovable. Q. 6. How should we treat those who think they have attained this? A. Exhort them to forget the things that are behind, and to watch and pray always, that God may search the ground of their hearts. WEDNESDAY, June 27th, we BEGAN To considER PoinTs WITH regard to which, the questions asked, and the sub stance of the answers given, were as follows: Q. 1. What is the Church of England? A. According to the Twentieth Article, the visible Church of England is the congregation of English believers, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered. (But the word “Church” is sometimes taken, in a looser sense, for “a congregation professing to believe.” So it is taken in the Twenty-sixth Article; and in the first, second, and third chapters of the Revelation.) Q. 2. Who is a member of the Church of England? A. A believer, hearing the pure word of God preached, and partaking of the sacraments duly administered, in that Church. Q. 3. What is it to be zealous for the Church? A. To be earnestly desirous of its welfare and increase: Of its welfare, by the confirmation of its present members, in faith, hearing, and communicating; and of its increase, by the addition of new members. Q. 4. How are we to defend the doctrine of the Church? A. Both by our preaching and living. Q. 5. How should we behave at a false or railing sermon? A. If it only contain personal reflections, we may quietly suffer it: If it blaspheme the work and Spirit of God, it may be better to go out of the Church.

A. They generally allow, that many believers have such an assurance; and, that it is to be desired and prayed for by all But then they affirm, that this is the highest species or degree of faith; that it is not the common privilege of believers: Consequently, they deny that this is justifying faith, or neces sarily implied therein.- Q. 3. And are there not strong reasons for their opinion? For instance: If the true believers of old had not this assur ance, then it is not necessarily implied in justifying faith. But the true believers of old had not this assurance. A. David, and many more of the believers of old, undenia bly had this assurance. But even if the Jews had it not, it would not follow that this is not implied in Christian faith. Q. 4. But do you not know that the Apostles themselves had it not till after the day of Pentecost? A. The Apostles themselves had not the proper Christian faith till after the day of Pentecost. Q. 5. But were not those Christian believers, in the proper sense, to whom St. John wrote his First Epistle? Yet to these he says, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (v. 13.) A. This does not prove that they did not know they had eternal life, any more than that they did not believe. His plain meaning is, “I have written unto you that you may be the more established in the faith.” Therefore, it does not follow from hence, that they had not this assurance; but only that there are degrees therein. Q. 6. But were not the Thessalonians true believers? Yet they had not this assurance; they had only a “good hope.” (2 Thess. ii. 16.) A. The text you refer to runs thus: “Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.” This good hope does not exclude, but necessarily implies, a strong assurance of the love of God. Q. 7. But does not St.

But does not St. Paul say even of himself, “I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified?” (1 Cor inthians iv. 4.) A. He does not say of himself here, that he was not justified, or that he did not know it; but only, that though he had a conscience void of offence, yet this did not justify him before God. And must not every believer say the same? This, there fore, is wide of the point. Q. 8. But does he not disclaim any such assurance in those words, “I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling?” (1 Cor. ii. 3.) A. By no means. For these words do not imply any fear either of death or hell. They express only a deep sense of his utter insufficiency for the great work wherein he was engaged. Q. 9. However, does he not exclude Christians in general from such an assurance, when he bids them “work out” their “salvation with fear and trembling?” (Phil. ii. 12.) A. No more than from love; which is always joined with filial fear and reverential trembling. And the same answer is applicable to all those texts which exhort a believer to fear. Q. 10. But does not matter of fact prove, that justifying faith does not necessarily imply assurance? For can you believe that such a person as J. A., or E. V., who have so much integrity, zeal, and fear of God, and walk so unblamably in all things, is void of justifying faith? Can you suppose such as these to be under the wrath and under the curse of God; especially if you add to this, that they are continually long ing, striving, praying for the assurance which they have not? A. This contains the very strength of the cause; and in clines us to think that some of these may be exempt cases. But, however that be, we answer, (1.) It is dangerous to ground a general doctrine on a few particular experiments. (2.) Men may have many good tempers, and a blameless life, (speaking in a loose sense,) by nature and habit, with prevent ing grace; and yet not have faith and the love of God. (3.) It is scarce possible for us to know all the circum stances relating to such persons, so as to judge certainly con cerning them.

P., &c., their heirs and assigns for ever. NEvERTHELEss, upon special trust and confidence, and to the intent, that they and the survivors of them, and the Trustees for the time being, do and shall permit John Wesley, of the City-Road, London, Clerk, and such other persons as he shall from time to time appoint, at all times, during his natural life, and no other persons, to have and enjoy the free use and benefit of the said premises; that the said John Wesley, and such other persons as he appoints, may therein preach and expound God’s holy word. And after his decease, upon further trust and confidence, and to the intent, that the said T. P., &c., or the major part of them, or the survivors of them, and the major part of the Trustees of the said premises for the time being, shall, from time to time, and at all times for ever, permit such persons as shall be appointed at the yearly Conference of the people called Methodists, in London, Bristol, Leeds, Manchester, or else where, specified by name in a Deed enrolled in Chancery, under the hand and seal of the said John Wesley, and bearing date the 28th day of February, 1784, and no others, to have and to enjoy the said premises, for the purposes aforesaid: Provided always, that the persons preach no other doctrine than is con tained in Mr. Wesley's ‘Notes upon the New Testament, and four volumes of ‘Sermons. And upon farther trust and confi dence, that, as often as any of these Trustees, or the Trustees for the time being, shall die, or cease to be a member of the society commonly called Methodists, the rest of the said Trus tees, or of the Trustees for the time being, as soon as conveni ently may be, shall and may choose another Trustee or Trus tees, in order to keep up the number of Trustees for ever. In witness whereof, the said B. H. hath hereunto set his hand and seal, the day and year above-written.” In this form the proprietors of the House are to make it over to five, seven, or nine Trustees. Q. 62. But is this form a safe one? Should we not have the opinion of a Counsel upon it? A.

Wesley went so far to gather such materials together, let us see what was the system (or rather the medley) of principles he had to return with to England.” “OF THE AssuBANCE OF JUSTIFICATION. “I BELIEVE that conversion is an instantaneous work; and that the moment a man is converted, or has living faith in Christ, he is justified: Which faith a man cannot have, with out knowing that he hath it. “Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (that is, that he has living faith) till a long time after. “I believe, also, that the moment a man is justified he has peace with God. “Which he cannot have without knowing that he has it. “Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (that is, that he has peace with God) till a long time after. “I believe, when a man is justified he is born of God. “And being born of God, he sinneth not. “Which deliverance from sin he cannot have without knowing it. “Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (that is, delivered from sin) till a long time after. “Though I believe that others may know that he is justified, by his power over sin, his seriousness, and love of the brethren.” “I BELIEVE that Christ ‘formed in us,’ subordinately to Christ ‘given for us,’ (that is, our own inherent righteousness subordinate to Christ’s merits,) ought to be insisted upon, as necessary to our justification. “And it is just and right that a man should be humble and penitent, and have a broken and contrite heart, (that is, should have Christ formed in him,) before he can expect to be justified. “And that this penitence and contrition is the work of the Holy Ghost. “Yet I believe that all this is nothing towards, and has no influence on, our justification. “Again, I believe that, in order to justification, I must go straight to Christ, with all my ungodliness, and plead nothing else. “Yet I believe that we should not insist upon anything we do or feel, as if it were necessary previous to justification.” 24. “OF THE EFFECTs OF JUSTIFICATION. “I BELIEVE that justification is the same thing as to be born of God.

“I BELIEVE that justification is the same thing as to be born of God. Yet a man may have a strong assurance that he is justified, and not be able to affirm that he is born of God. “A man may be fully assured that his sins are forgiven, yet may not be able to tell the hour or day when he received this full assurance, because it may grow up in him by degrees. Though he can remember that, from the time this full assurance was confirmed in him, he never lost it, no, not for a moment. “A man may have a weak faith at the same time that he hath peace with God, not one uneasy thought, and freedom from sin, not one unholy desire. “A man may be justified, that is, born of God, who has not a clean heart, that is, is not sanctified. “He may be justified, that is, born of God, and not have the indwelling of the Spirit.” 25. I entirely agree, “that the foregoing creed is a very extraordinary and odd composition.” But it is not mine: I neither composed it, nor believe it; as, I doubt not, every im partial reader will be fully convinced, when we shall have gone over it, once more, step by step. The parts of it which I do believe I shall barely repeat: On the others it will be needful to add a few words. “OF THE AssURANCE OF JUSTIFICATION. “I BELIEVE that conversion,” meaning thereby justification, “is an instantaneous work; and that the moment a man has living faith in Christ, he is converted or justified.” (So the proposition must be expressed to make it sense.) “Which faith he cannot have, without knowing that he has it.” “Yet I believe he may not know that he has it till long after.” This I deny: I believe no such thing. “I believe the moment a man is justified he has peace with God: “Which he cannot have without knowing that he has it.” “Yet I believe he may not know he has it till long after.” This again I deny. I believe it not; nor Michael Linner neither; to clear whom entirely, one need only read his own words: “About fourteen years ago, I was more than ever convinced that I was wholly different from what God required me to be.

I believe it not; nor Michael Linner neither; to clear whom entirely, one need only read his own words: “About fourteen years ago, I was more than ever convinced that I was wholly different from what God required me to be. I consulted his word again and again; but it spoke nothing but condemnation; till at last I could not read, nor indeed do any thing else, having no hope and no spirit left in me. I had been in this state for several days, when, being musing by myself, those words came strongly into my mind, “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all who believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ I thought, ‘All ! Then I am one. Then He is given for me. But I am a sinner: And he came to save sinners.’ Immedi ately my burden dropped off, and my heart was at rest. “But the full assurance of faith I had not yet, nor for the two years I continued in Moravia. When I was driven out thence by the Jesuits, I retired hither, and was soon after received into the Church. And here, after some time, it pleased our Lord to manifest himself more clearly to my soul; and give PRINCIPLEs of A METHODIsT. 37] me that full sense of acceptance in him, which excludes all doubt and fear. “Indeed, the leading of the Spirit is different in different souls. His more usual method, I believe, is, to give, in one and the same moment, forgiveness of sins, and a full assurance of that forgiveness. Yet in many he works as he did in me; giving first the remission of sins, and after some weeks, or months, or years, the full assurance of it.” (Vol. I. p. 128.) All I need observe is, that the first sense of forgiveness is often mixed with doubt or fear. But the full assurance of faith excludes all doubt and fear, as the very term implies. Therefore, instead of, “He may not know that he has peace with God till long after,” it should be, (to agree with Michael Linner’s words,) “He may not have, till long after, the full assurance of faith, which excludes all doubt and fear.” “I believe a man is justified at the same time that he is born of God.

Your humilia tion has no influence on that.” Not as a cause; so the very last words explain it. “Again, I believe that in order to obtain justification, I must go straight to Christ, with all my ungodliness, and plead nothing else.” “Yet I believe we should not insist on anything we door feel, as if it were necessary previous to justification.” No, nor on anything else. So the whole tenor of Christian David’s words implies. 27. “I believe a man may have a strong assurance he is jus tified, and not be able to affirm he is a child of God.” Feder’s words are these: “I found my heart at rest, in good hope that mysins were forgiven; of which I had a stronger assur ance six weeks after.” (True, comparatively stronger, though still mixed with doubt and fear.) “But I dare not affirm, I am a child of God.” I see no inconsistency in all this. Many such instances I know at this day. I myself was one for some time. “A man may be fully assured that his sins are forgiven, yet may not be able to tell the day when he received this full assur ance; because it grew up in him by degrees.” (Of this also I know a few other instances.) “But from the time this full assurance was confirmed in him, he never lost it.” Very true, and, I think, consistent. Neuser's own words are, “In him I found true rest to my soul, being fully assured that all my sins were forgiven. Yet I cannot tell the hour or day when I first received that full assurance. For it was not given me at first, neither at once;” (not in its fulness;) “but grew up in me by degrees. And from the time it was confirmed in me, I have never lost it, having never since doubted, no, not for a moment.” “A man may have a weak faith, at the same time that he has peace with God, and no unholy desires.” A man may be justified, who has not a clean heart. 28. (11.) Not in the full sense of the word. This I doverily believe is sound divinity, agreeable both to Scripture and ex perience. And I believe it is consistent with itself.

To the first of these propositions you object, “that justi fication is not only two-fold, but manifold. For a man may possibly sin many times, and as many times be justified or for given.” (Remarks, pp. 37-39.) I grant it. I grant also, that justification sometimes means a state of acceptance with God. But all this does not in the least affect my assertion, that “that justification which is spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and by our Church in the Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Articles, is not our acquittal at the last day, but the present remission of our sins.” You add, “You write in other places so variously about this matter, that I despair to find any consistency. Once you held ‘a degree of justifying faith short of the full assurance of faitk, the abiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him;’ and yet you afterwards “warned all not to think they were justified before they had a clear assur ance, that God had forgiven their sins. What difference there is between this clear assurance, and the former full assurance and clear perception, I know not.” (Page 40.) Let us go on step by step, and you will know. “Once you held ‘a degree of justifying faith, short of the full assurance of faith, the abiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him.’” And so I hold still, and have done for some years. “And yet you afterwards warned all not to think they were justified before they had a clear assurance that God had forgiven their sins.” I did so. “What difference there is between this clear assurance, and that full assurance and clear perception, Iknow not.” Sir, I will tell you. The one is an assurance that my sins are forgiven, clear at first, but soon clouded with doubt or fear. The other is such a plero phory or full assurance that I am forgiven, and so clear a per ception that Christ abideth in me, as utterly excludes all doubt and fear, and leaves them no place, no, not for an hour. So that the difference between them is as great as the difference be tween the light of the morning and that of the mid-day sun. 9.

One more I have since found in the same state: But observe, neither of these continued therein; nor did I ever know one that did. So sure it is that all faith is the gift of God, which the moment he withdraws, the evil heart of un belief will poison the whole soul.” (Ibid. p. 294.) Which of these is an “instance of the most desperate despair?” Surely the most desperate of any, yea, the only one which is properly said to be desperate at all, is that which produces instant self-murder; which causes a poor wretch, by a sin which he cannot repent of, to rush straight through death into hell. But that was not the case in any of these instances; in all which we have already seen the end of the Lord. 15. That I “raise separate societies against the Church,” (Remarks, p. 14,) is a charge which I need not examine till the evidence is produced. You next cite a Moravian's words to me: (an Englishman joined with the Moravians:) “You have eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin; you take upon you to guide unstable souls, and lead them in the way of damna tion;” and remark, “This is only returning some of your own treatment upon yourself. Here also you set the pattern.” At what time and place, when and where, were “such abuses as these thrown out by me against our Universities, and against our regular Clergy, not the highest or the worthiest excepted?” I am altogether clear in this matter, as often as it has been objected: Neither do I desire to receive any other treatment from the Clergy, than they have received from me to this day. You have a note at the bottom of this page which runs thus: “See pages 71, 77, and 73," where some Methodists said they had heard both your brother and you many times preach Popery.” I am afraid you advance here a wilful untruth, purely ad movendam invidiam.t. For you cannot but know, (1.) That there is not one word of preaching Popery, either in page 71 or 77. And (2.) That when Mr. C. and two other Predestinarians (as is related page 73) affirmed they had heard both my brother and me many times preach Popery, they meant neither more nor less thereby than the doctrine of universal redemption. 16.

And in proportion to its getting ground, it has never failed to per plex the weak, to harden the wicked, and to please the profane. Your Journal is a proof that these terrible consequences have of late prevailed, perhaps more than ever.” (Page 51.) Sup pose that Journal gives a true account of facts, (which you seem not to deny,) could you find there no other fruits of my preaching, than these terrible ones you here mention? O who so blind, as he that will not see! 18. But that we may not still talk at large, let us bring this question into as narrow a compass as possible. Let us go no farther as to time, than seven years last past; as to place, than London and the parts adjoining; as to persons, than you and me, Thomas Church preaching one doctrine, John Wesley the other. Now then, let us consider with meekness and fear, what have been the consequences of each doctrine. You have preached justification by faith and works, at Bat tersea, and St. Ann’s, Westminster; while I preached justifica tion by faith alone, near Moorfields, and at Short's Gardens. I beseech you then to consider, in the secret of your heart, how many sinners have you converted to God? By their fruits we shall know them. This is a plain rule. By this test let them be tried. How many outwardly and habitually wicked men have you brought to uniform habits of outward holiness? It is an awful thought ! Can you instance in a hundred? in fifty? in twenty? in ten? If not, take heed unto yourself and to your doctrine. It cannot be that both are right before God. Consider now (I would not speak, but I dare not refrain) what have been the consequences of even my preaching the other doctrine. By the fruits shall we know those of whom I speak; even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience the gos pel I preach to be the power of God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard, that was, is now temperate in all things. The whoremonger now flees fornication. He that stole, steals no more, but works with his hands. He that cursed or swore, perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with reverence.

not so much as an intimation | Then why is this cited as an instance of my enthusiasm ? Why, “You seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers; whereas, I believe they would not have failed of an equal blessing and success, had they had the prayers of their own parish Minis ters.” I believe this argument will have extraordinary success, if it convince any one that I am an enthusiast. 12. You add, “I shall give but one account more, and this is what you give of yourself.” (Remarks, p. 72.) The sum whereof is, “At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease.” I did so. I assert the fact still. “Now, if these,” you say, “are not miraculous cures, all this is rank enthusiasm.” I will put your argument in form : He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not so is a rank enthusiast: But you believe those to be miraculous cures which are not so : Therefore, you are a rank enthusiast. Before I answer, I must know what you mean by miraculous. If you term everything so, which is not strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, then I deny the latter part of the minor proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove the effects in question are strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is nothing worth. You conclude this head with, “Can you work miracles? All your present pretences to the Spirit, till they are proved by miracles, cannot be excused, or acquitted from enthusiasm.” (Page 73.) My short answer is this: I pretend to the Spirit just so far as is essential to a state of salvation. And cannot I be ac quitted from enthusiasm till I prove by miracles that I am in a state of salvation? 13. We now draw to a period: “The consequences of Methodism,” you say, that is, of our preaching this doctrine, The REV. M.R. CHURCH. 413 “which have hitherto appeared, are bad enough to induce you to leave it.

That unbelievers ought. The assertion relates to them only. “And the same you say in general of the Moravian brethren, in your Letter.” I say, they hold that un believers ought to abstain from them. But yet I know and bear witness, they use them themselves, and that “with reverence and godly fear.” “‘Mr. Molther was quickly after recalled to Germany.’ This might be on other accounts. You do not say it was out of any dislike of his doctrines or proceedings.” I do not say so; because I am not sure; but I believe it was out of a dislike to some of his proceedings, if not of his doctrines too. “Nor indeed can you, consistently with your next words: ‘The great fault of the Moravian Church seems to lie, in not openly disclaiming all he had said.’” relating to this head. They did privately disclaim what he had said of degrees in faith. But I think that was not enough. And I still believe they would have done more, “had they not leaned themselves to the same opinion,” touching the ordinances. Thirdly. “You ‘never knew but one of the Moravian Church affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness.” But who was this? No less a person than Count Zinzendorf, their great Bishop and patron, whose authority is very high, all in all with them, and to whom you think they pay ‘too much regard.’” Do you apprehend where the stress of the argument lies? I never heard one Moravian affirm this, but the Count alone; and him only once; and that once was in the heat of dispute. Aud hence I inferred, it is not a doctrine of the Moravian Church; nay, I doubt whether it be the Count’s own settled judgment. 3. But I may not dismiss this passage yet. It is now my turn to complain of unfair usage; of the exceeding lame, broken, imperfect manner wherein you cite my words.

The justness of some of your remarks, if I mistake not, has been pretty fully disproved. As to what you speak of my art, sub tlety, and so on, in this and many other places, I look upon it as neither better nor worse than a civil way of calling names. “‘To this multitude of crimes I am also an utter stranger.’ Then you have charged them wrongfully. What do you account guile?” &c. (Second Letter, p. 84.) I account guile, despising self-denial even in the smallest points, and teaching that those who have not the assurance of faith may not use the ordinances of God, the Lord's Supper in particular, (this is the real, un aggravated charge,) to be faults which cannot be excused. But I do not account them all together “a multitude of crimes.” I conceive this is a vehement hyperbole. “The honour of religion,” said you, “and virtue trampled apon:” I answered, “By whom ? Not by the Moravians.” You reply, “And yet you have accused some of these as decry ing all the means of grace.” No. What I accused them of, was, teaching that an unbeliever (in their sense) ought to abstain from them. “Neither did I know, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people.’ Your Journal is before the world; to whom I appeal whether this has not so repre sented them.” But how do you here represent your remark, and my answer? My paragraph runs thus:-- “You go on, “How could you so long, and so intimately, converse with such desperately wicked people as the Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be?” O Sir, what another assertion is this ! “The Moravians, ac cording to your own account, were known by you to be desperately wicked people, while you intimately conversed with them !’ Utterly false and injurious! I never gave any such account. I conversed with them intimately both at Savannah and Hernhuth. But neither then, nor at any other time, did I know, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people: I think and say just the reverse; viz., that though I soon ‘found among them a few things which I could not ap prove, yet I believe they are, in the main, some of the best Chris tians in the world.

5. You next “take the pains to lay before the reader an instance or two of confusion,” &c. The first I read thus: “While we were at the room, Mrs. J., sitting at home, took the Bible to read; but on a sudden threw it away, saying, “I am good enough. I will never read or pray more. She was in the same mind when I came; often repeating, “I used to think I was full of sin, and that I sinned in every thing I did. But now I know better; I am a good Christian; I never did any harm in my life; I do not desire to be any better than I am. She spake many things to the same effect, plainly showing that the spirit of pride and of lies had the full dominion over her. I asked, “Do you desire to be healed?” She said, ‘I am whole.’ ‘But do you desire to be saved ?” She replied, ‘I am saved, Iail nothing, I am happy.” “This is one of the fruits of the present salvation and sinless perfection taught by you among the weak and igno rant.” (Page 11.) I should wonder if the scarecrow of sinless perfection was not brought in some way or other. But to the point: You here repeat a relation as from me, and that “in confirmation,” you say, “ of your own veracity,” and yet leave out both the beginning of that relation, part of the middle, and the end of it. I begin thus: “Sun. 11.--I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil.” (Vol. I. p. 295.) These words, of all others, should not have been left out, being a key to all that follows. In the middle of the relation, immediately after the words, “I am happy,” I add, “Yet it was easy to discern she was in the most violent agony both of body and mind; sweating exceedingly, notwithstanding the severe frost, and not continuing in the same posture a moment: ”-- A plain proof that this was no instance of presumption, nor a natural fruit of any teaching whatever.

In the middle of the relation, immediately after the words, “I am happy,” I add, “Yet it was easy to discern she was in the most violent agony both of body and mind; sweating exceedingly, notwithstanding the severe frost, and not continuing in the same posture a moment: ”-- A plain proof that this was no instance of presumption, nor a natural fruit of any teaching whatever. It ends thus: “About a quarter before six the next morn ing, after lying quiet a while, she broke out, “Peace be unto thee” (her husband); ‘peace be unto this house; the peace of God is come to my soul; I know that my Redeemer liveth.’ And for several days her mouth was filled with his praise, and her talk was wholly of his wondrous works.” Had not these words been left out, neither could this have passed for an instance of despair. Though still I do not know but it might have stood for an instance of confusion, &c. I must not forget that this was cited at first as a proof of my enthusiasm; as an instance of a private revelation, “which,” you say, “I seem to pay great credit to,--representing the con jectures of a woman, whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophecy.” (Remarks, p. 64.) I answered, “Descant, Sir, as you please on this enthusiasm; on the credit I paid to this private revelation; and my representing the conjectures of this brain-sick woman as owing to a miraculous power of the Spirit of prophecy: And when you have done, I will desire you to read the passage once more; where you will find my express words are, introducing this account: ‘Sun. 11. I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil.” Such was the credit I paid to this revelation 1 All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God is, the enabling her to strive against the power of the devil, and at length restoring peace to her soul.” (Answer, page 408.) I was in hopes you had done with this instance. But I am disappointed: For in your Second Letter I read thus: “The instances of enthusiasm and presumption which your last Journal had furnished me with remain now to be reviewed.

I took upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any Steward of a society exerts by the consent of the other members. I did neither more nor less than declare, that they who had broken our rules were no longer of our society. “Can you pretend that you received this authority from our Church?” Not by ordination; for I did not exert it as a Priest; but as one whom that society had voluntarily chosen to be at the head of them. “Or that you exercised it in sub jection or subordination to her lawful Governors?” I think so; I am sure I did not exercise it in any designed opposition to them. “Did you ever think proper to consult or advise with them, about fixing the terms of your communion?” If you mean, about fixing the rules of admitting or excluding from our society, I never did think it either needful or proper. Nor do I at this day. “How then will you vindicate all these powers?” All these are, “declaring those are no longer of our society.” “Here is a manifest congregation. Either it belonged to the Church of England, or not. If it did not, you set up a separate commu nion against her. And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from her?” I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false: Therefore the consequent falls of course. “If it did belong to the Church, show where the Church gave you such authority of controlling and regulating it?” Authority of putting disorderly members out of that society? The society itself gave me that autho rity. “What private Clergyman can plead her commission to be thus a Judge and Ordinary, even in his own parish?” Any Clergyman or layman, without pleading her commis sion, may be thus a Judge and Ordinary. “Are not these powers inherent in her Governors, and committed to the higher order of her Clergy?” No; not the power of ex cluding members from a private society, -unless on supposi tion of some such rule as ours is, viz., “That if any man sepa rate from the Church, he is no longer a member of our society.” 7. But you have more proof yet: “The Grand Jury in Georgia found, that you had called yourself Ordinary of Savan nah.

But you have more proof yet: “The Grand Jury in Georgia found, that you had called yourself Ordinary of Savan nah. Nor was this fact contradicted even by those of the Jury who, you say, wrote in your favour: So that it appears, you have long had an inclination to be independent and uncontrolled.” This argument ought to be good; for it is far fetched. The plain case was this: That Grand Jury did assert, that, in Mr. Causton’s hearing, I had called myself Ordinary of Savannah. The minority of the Jury, in their letter to the Trustees, refuted the other allegations particularly; but thought this so idle an one, that they did not deign to give it any farther reply, than, “As to the eighth bill we are in doubt, as not well know ing the meaning of the word Ordinary.” See Wol. I. p. 59. You add, “I appeal to any reasonable man, whether you have not acted as an Ordinary, nay, a Bishop, in Kingswood.” If you mean, in “declaring those disorderly members were no longer of that society;” I admit your appeal, whether I therein acted as a Bishop, or as any Steward of a society may. “Nay, you have gone far beyond the generality of the Dissenters them selves; who do not commit the power of excommunication, and appointing to preach,” (that is anotherquestion,) “to the hands of any private Minister.” The power of excommunication. True; but this was not excommunication, but a quite different thing. How far, in what circumstances, and in what sense, I have “appointed men to preach,” I have explained at large in the Third Part of the “Farther Appeal.” But I wait for farther light; and am ready to consider, as I am able, whatever shall be replied to what is there advanced. 444 PRINCIPLES OF A METhiODIST 8. Your general conclusion is, “Whatever your pretences or professions may be, you can be looked upon by serious and impartial persons, not as a member, much less a Minister, of the Church of England, but as no other than an enemy to her constitution, worship, and doctrine, raising divisions and dis turbances in her communion.” (Ibid. p. 76.) “And yet you say, ‘I cannot have greater regard to her rules.” “I dare not renounce communion with her.’” (Ibid. p. 15.) I do say so still.

But I do not yet find that this is owing to my want of ‘considering things coolly and care fully.” Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take. Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants!” (Page 407.) You reply, “Your private life I have nothing to do with;” and then enlarge on my “method of consulting Scripture,” and of using lots;--of both which by and by. But meantime, observe, this does not affect the question: For I neither cast lots, nor use that method at all, till I have considered things with all the care I can. So that, be this right or wrong, it is no manner of proof that I do not “carefully consider every step I take.” But how little did I profit by begging your excuse, suppose I had spoken a word unguardedly ! O Sir, you put me in mind of him who said, “I know not how to show mercy!” You have need never to fight but when you are sure to conquer; seeing you are resolved neither to give nor take quarter. You remark, (7) “He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle supe rior to it,-the direction of God’s Spirit.” I answered, “I am very difficult to be convinced by dry blows or hard names, but not by reason or argument. At least that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention: For I claim no other direc tion of God’s Spirit than is common to all believers.” You reply, (1.) “I fear this will not be easily reconcilable to your past pretences and behaviour.” (Page 124.) I believe it will; in particular, to what I speak of the light I received from God in that important affair. (Vol. I. p. 46.) But as to the directions, in general, of the Spirit of God, we very probably differ in this: You apprehend those directions to be extraordi nary, which I suppose to be common to all believers. You remark, (8.) “Whoever opposes him will be charged with resisting or rejecting the Spirit.” I answered, “What! whoever opposes me, John Wesley?

The next ran thus: “Again, you say, “I expounded out of the fulness that was given me.’” (Remarks, p. 64.) I answered, “I mean, I had then a fuller, deeper sense of what I spoke than I ordinarily have.” (Page 409.) But if you still think, “it would have been more decent to have said, ‘According to the best of my power and ability, with God’s assistance, I expounded;’” I will say so another time. With regard to the third instance of enthusiasm, youremarked, “If you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing in it worthy of being related.” (Remarks, p. 64.) I answered, “It may be so. Let it pass, then, as a trifle not worth relating; but still it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I 452 PRINCIPLES OF A METholoist would not have you look upon it as miraculous, but as a signal instance of God’s particular providence.” (Page 409.) How friendly and generous is your reply l--“You seem ashamed of it. I am glad you give this fooling up, and hope for the future you will treat your readers better.” (Second Letter, p. 131.) Sir, I am not ashamed of it; nor shall I ever give this fooling up, till I give up the Bible. I still look upon this “as a signal instance of God’s particular providence.” But “how is this con sistent with yielding it to be a trifle?” (Ibid. p. 132.) My words do not imply, that I yield it so to be. Being urged with the dilemma, “Either this is related as miraculous,” (and then it is enthusiasm,) “ or it is not worth relating; ” I answered, (to avoid drawing the saw of controversy,) “Let it pass, then, as a trifle not worth relating. But still” (if it be a trifle, which I suppose, not grant) “it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as miraculous.” And yet I believe I yielded too much, and what might too much favour your assertion, that “there is a great difference between particular providences and such extraordinary interpo sitions.” Pray, Sir, show me what this difference is. It is a subject that deserves your coolest thoughts. “I know no ground to hope or pray for such immediate reliefs.

You remarked, “It will be difficult to persuade any sober person, that there is anything supernatural in these disorders.” (Remarks, p. 69.) The remainder of that paragraph I abridged thus: You attempt to account for those fits, by “obstructions or irregularities of the blood and spirits; hysterical disorders; watchings, fastings, closeness of rooms, great crowds, violent heat;” and lastly by “terrors, perplexities, and doubts, in weak and well-meaning men; which,” you think, “in many of the cases before us, have quite overset their understand ings.” (Remarks, p. 43.) Ianswered, “As to each of the rest, let it goas far as it can go.” (Let it be supposed to have some influence in some cases; per haps fully to account for one in a thousand.) “But I require proof of the last way whereby you would account for these disorders.” Why, “the instances,” you say, “ of religious madness have much increased since you began to disturb the world.” I doubt the fact. You reply, “This no way disproves it.” (Second Letter, p. 137.) Yes, it does, till you produce some proof. For a bare negation is the proper and sufficient answer to a bare affirmation. I add, “If these instances had increased daily, it is easy to account for them another way,” as is done in the First Part of the Farther Appeal, at the one hundred and thirty-first and following pages. You say, “Most have heard of or known several of the Methodists thus driven to distraction.” I answered, “You may have heard of five hun dred. But how many have you known P Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them, no, not one of them to this day, either man, woman, or child.” (Page 411.) You reply, “This” (the naming them) “would be very im proper and unnecessary.” Second Letter, p. 138.) However, Sir, it is extremely necessary that you should name them to me in private. I will then, if required, excuse you to the public; which till then I cannot do. The person I mentioned, whom you threw into much doubt and perplexity, then lived in the parish of St. Ann, West minster. I related the case just as she related it to me. But she is able and ready to answer for herself. 9.

(3.) That, with or without them, the proposition is false; unless so far as it coincides with that you reject. For it is the believing those to be miracles which are not, that constitutes an enthusiast; not the representing them one way or the other; unless so far as it implies such a belief. 12. Upon my answer to the syllogism first proposed, you ob serve, “Thus” (by denying the latter part of the minor) “you clear yourself from the charge of enthusiasm, by acknowledging the cures to be supernatural and miraculous. Why then would 460 PRINCIPLES OF A METhiOD1ST you not speak out, and directly say, that you can work real and undoubted miracles? This would put the controversy be tween you and your opposers on a short foot, and be an effectual proof of the truth of your pretences.” (Second Letter, p. 142.) V. l. I have in some measure explained myself on the head of miracles, in the Third Part of the Farther Appeal. But since you repeat the demand, (though without taking any notice of the arguments there advanced,) I will endeavour once more to give you a distinct, full, and determinate answer. And, (1.) I acknowledge that I have seen with my eyes, and heard with my ears, several things which, to the best of my judgment, cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of natural causes; and which I therefore believe ought to be “ascribed to the extraordinary interposition of God.” If any man choose to style these miracles, I reclaim not. I have dili gently inquired into the facts. I have weighed the preceding and following circumstances. I have strove to account for them in a natural way. I could not, without doing violence to my reason. Not to go far back, I am clearly persuaded, that the sudden deliverance of John Haydon was one in stance of this kind; and my own recovery, on May 10th, another. I cannot account for either of these in a natural way. Therefore I believe they were both supernatural. I must (2.) Observe, that the truth of these facts is sup ported by the same kind of proof, as that of all other facts is wont to be, namely, the testimony of competent witnesses; and that the testimony here is in as high a degree as any reasonable man can desire.

Permit me to remind you only of a few instances; and to observe that the argument holds a fortiori : For who will ever be impowered of God again to work such miracles as these were? Did Pharaoh look on all that Moses and Aaron wrought as an “effectual proof of the truth of their pretences?” ..even when “the Lord made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided;” when “the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall unto them on the right hand, and on the left?” (Exod. xiv. 21, 22.) Nay, The wounded dragon raged in vain; And, fierce the utmost plague to brave, Madly he dared the parted main, And sunk beneath the o’erwhelming wave. Was all this “an effectual proof of the truth of their pretences,” to the Israelites themselves? It was not. “They were” still “disobedient at the sea; even at the Red Sea !” Was the giving them day by day “bread from heaven,” “an effectual proof” to those “two hundred and fifty princes of the assem bly, famous in the congregation, men of renown,” who said, with Dathan and Abiram, “Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up?” (Numbers xvi. 14;) nay, “when the ground clave asunder that was under them; and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up?” (Verse 32.) Neither was this an “effectual proof” to those who saw it with their eyes, and heard the cry of those that went down into the pit; but, the very next day, they “mur mured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord!” (Verse 41.) Was not the case generally the same with regard to the Pro phets that followed? several of whom “stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire,” did many mighty works; yet their own people received them not. Yet “they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword;” they were “destitute, afflicted, tormented !” utterly contrary to the commonly received supposition, that the work ing real, undoubted miracles must bring all controversy to an end, and convince every gainsayer. Let us come nearer yet. How stood the case between our Lord himself and his opposers? Did he not work “real and undoubted miracles?” And what was the effect?

Did he not work “real and undoubted miracles?” And what was the effect? Still, when “he came to his own, his own received him not.” Still “he was despised and rejected of men.” Still it was a challenge not to be answered: “Have any of the rulers or of the Phari sees believed on him?” After this, how can you imagine, that whoever works miracles must convince “all men of the truth of his pretences?” I would just remind you of only one instance more: “There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked. The same heard Paul speak; who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiv ing that he had faith to be healed, said, with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.” Here was so undoubted a miracle, that the people “lifted up their voices, saying, The Gods are come down in the likeness of men.” But how long were even these convinced of the truth of his pretences? Only till “there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium;’ and then they stoned him (as they supposed) to death ! (Acts xiv. 8, &c.) So certain it is, that no miracles whatever, which were ever yet wrought in the world, were effectual to prove the most glaring truth, to those that hardened their hearts against it. 4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. “If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be’” con vinced of what they desire not to believe, “though one rose from the dead.” Without a miracle, without one rising from the dead, eav tis 6exy to 6exmua avtov Troueuv, “if any man be willing to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.” But if he is not willing to do his will, he will never want an excuse, a plausible reason, for rejecting it. Yea, though ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it.

At length we have a distinct reply: “Wise and sober men will not otherwise be convinced,” (that is, un less you prove this by miracles,) “that God is, by the means of such Teachers, and such doctrines, working a great and extraordinary work in the earth.” (Preface, p. 6.) So then the determinate point which you, in their name, call upon us to prove by miracles, is this, “that God is, by these Teachers, working a great and extraordinary work in the ..earth.” What I mean by “a great and extraordinary work” is, the bringing multitudes of gross notorious sinners, in a short space, to the fear, and love, and service of God, to an entire change of heart and life. Now, then, let us take a nearer view of the proposition, and see which part of it we are to prove by miracles. “Is it, (1.) That A. B. was, for many years, without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, a Sabbath-breaker? “Or, (2.) That he is not so now? “Or, (3.) That he continued so till he heard these men preach; and from that time was another man? “Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is, by the testimony of competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. “Or would you have us prove by miracles, (4.) That this was not done by our own power or holiness? that God only is able to raise the dead, to quicken those who are dead in trespasses and sins?” Surely no. Whosoever believes the Scriptures will want no new proof of this. Where then is the wisdom of those men who demand miracles in proof of such a proposition ? one branch of which, “that such sinners were reformed by the means of these Teachers,” being a plain fact, can only be proved by testimony, as all other facts are; and the other, “That this is a work of God, and a great and more than ordinary work,” needs no proof, as carrying its own evidence to every thinking man. 8.

Well, “here it is: Roger Balls.”--Pray who is Roger Balls? No more a Methodist than he is a Turk. I know not one good thing he ever did or said, beside the telling all men, “I am no Methodist,” which he generally does in the first sentence he speaks, when he can find any one to hear him. He is therefore one of your own allies; and a champion worthy of his cause ! If then you have no more than this to advance in support of your first charge, you have alleged what you are not able to prove. And the more heavy that allegation is, the more unkind, the more unjust, the more unchristian, the more inhuman, it is to bring it without proof. In support of the Second charge, you say, “Our Saviour declares our works to be the object of hisjudgment. But the Methodist, for the perdition of the souls of his followers, says our works are of no consideration at all.” Who says so? Mr. Whitefield, or my brother, or I? We say the direct contrary. But one of my “anonymous corre spondents says so.” Who is he? How do you know he is a Methodist? For aught appears, he may be another of your allies, a brother to Roger Balls. Three or threescore anonymous correspondents cannot yield one grain of proof, any more than an hundred anonymous remarkers on Theron and Aspasio. Before these can prove what the Methodists hold, you must prove that these are Methodists; either that they are original Methodists, or in connexion with them. Will you say, “If these were not Methodists themselves, they would not defend the Methodists?” I deny the consequence: Men may be far from being Methodists, and yet willing to do the Methodists justice. I have known a Clergyman of note say to another, who had just been preaching a very warm sermon, “Sir, I do not thank you at all for this. I have no acquaint ance with Mr. Whitefield or Mr.

Whitefield or Mr. Wesley; and I do not agree with them in opinion; but I will have no more railing in my pulpit.” From the principles of the Methodists, you proceed to their practice: “They hunt,” say you, “for extraordinary marks and revelations, whereby to know the state of the soul.” The marks by which I know the state of any soul, are the inward fruit of the Spirit,-love, joy, peace, and meekness, gentleness, good ness, longsuffering, temperance, patience; shown, not by words only, but by the genuine fruit of outward holiness. Again : “They magnify their office beyond the truth, by high pretences to miraculous inspiration.” To this assertion, we have answered over and over, We pretend to no other inspi ration than that which, not only every true gospel Minister, but every real Christian, enjoys. Again: “The end of all impostors is some kind of worldly gain; and it is difficult for them to conceal their views entirely. The love of filthy lucre will appear, either by the use they make of it, or the means of getting it.” As to the use made of it, you are silent. But as to the means of getting it, you say, “Besides inhumanly wringing from the poor, the helpless widows, the weeping orphans,” (the proof! the proof!) “they creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with divers lusts.” It is easy to say this, and ten times more; but can you prove it? And ought you to say it, till you can? I shall not concern myself with anything in your Appendix, but what relates to me in particular. This premised, I observe on No. I. There are several instances in my Journals, of per sons that were in agonies of grief or fear, and roared for the qisquietness of their heart; of some that exceedingly trennbled before God, perhaps fell down to the ground; and of others whom God, in his adorable providence, suffered to be lunatic and sore vexed. The particular instances hereof, to which you refer, have been largely vindicated already, in the Two Letters to the Rev. Dr. Church, as well as that to the late Bishop of London. In the six following numbers I am not concerned.

“Corporal severities or mortification by tormenting the flesh,” (page 31,) is the next thing you charge upon me. Almost two sentences you bring in proof of this. The one, “Our bed being wet,” (it was in a storm at sea,) “I laid me down on the floor, and slept soued till morning; and I believe I shall not find it needful to go to bed, as it is called, any more.” But whether I do or not, how will you prove, that my motive is, to “gain a reputation for sanctity?” I desire (if it be not too great a favour) a little evidence for this. The other fragment of a sentence speaks “of bearing cold on the naked head, rain and wind, frost and snow.” (Page 32.) True; but not as matter of “mortification, by tormenting the flesh.” Nothing less. These things are not spoken of there as voluntary instances of mortification; (you yourself know perfectly well, they are not, only you make free with your friend;) but as some of the unavoidable inconveniences which attend preaching in the open air. Therefore you need not be so “sure that the Apostle con demns that abetöta aouatos, “not sparing the body, as useless and superstitious; and that it is a false show of humility.” (Page 33.) Humility is entirely out of the question, as well as chastity, in the case of hardships endured (but not properly chosen) out of love to the souls for which Christ died. 15. You add a word or two of my “ardent desire of going to hell,” which, you think, I “adopted from the Jesuit Nierem berg.” (Page 34.) Sir, I know not the man. I am wholly a stranger both to his person and to his doctrine. But if this is his doctrine, I disclaim it from my heart. I ardently desire, that both you and I may go to heaven. But “Mr. Wesley says, “A poor old man decided the ques tion of disinterested love. He said, I do not care what place I am in. Let God put me where he will, or do with me what he will, so I may set forth his honour and glory.’” (Page 35.) He did so. And what then? Do these words imply “an ardent desire of going to hell?” I do not suppose the going to hell ever entered into his thoughts.

For you had before you, while you wrote, the very tract wherein I corrected Mr. Bedford’s mistake, and explicitly declared, “The assurance whereof I speak is not an assurance of salva tion.” And the very passages you cite from me prove the same; every one of which (as you yourself know in your own conscience) relates wholly and solely to present pardon, not to future salvation. Of Christian perfection (page 45) I shall not say anything to you, till you have learned a little heathen honesty. 22. That this is a lesson you have not yet learned, appears, also, from your following section; wherein you roundly affirm, “Whatever they think, say, or do,” (that is, the Methodists, according to their own account,) “is from God. And whatever opposeth is from the devil.” I doubt not but Mr. Church believed this to be true when he asserted it. But this is no plea for you; who, having read the answer to Mr. Church, still assert what you know to be false. “Here we have,” say you, “the true spirit and very essence of enthusiasm, which sets men above carnal reason ing, and all conviction of plain Scripture.” (Page 49.) It may, or may not; that is nothing to me. I am not above either reason or Scripture. To either of these I am ready to submit. But I cannot receive scurrilous invective, instead of Scripture; nor pay the same regard to low buffoonery, as to clear and cogent reasons. 23. With your two following pages I have nothing to do. But in the fifty-second I read as follows: “‘A Methodist,’ says Mr. Wesley, ‘went to receive the sacrament; when God was pleased to let him see a crucified Saviour.” Very well; and what is this brought to prove? Why, (1.) That I am an enthusiast: (2.) That I “encourage the notion of the real, corporal presence, in the sacrifice of the mass.” How so? Why, “this is as good an argument for transubstantiation as several produced by Bellarmine.” (Page 57.) Very likely it may; and as good as several produced by you for the enthusiasm of the Methodists. 24. In that “seraphic rhapsody of divine love,” as you term it, which you condemn in the lump, as rant and mad Aness, there are several scriptural expressions, both from the Old and New Testament.

In that “seraphic rhapsody of divine love,” as you term it, which you condemn in the lump, as rant and mad Aness, there are several scriptural expressions, both from the Old and New Testament. At first I imagined you did not know them; those being books which you did not seem to be much acquainted with. But upon laying circumstances together, I rather suppose you was glad of so handsome an opportunity to make as if you aimed at me, that you might have a home stroke at some of those old enthusiasts. 25. The next words which you cite from me, as a proof of my enthusiasm, are, “The power of God was in an unusual manner present.” (Page 61.) I mean, many found an unusual degree of that peace, joy, and love, which St. Paul terms, “the fruit of the Spirit.” And all these, in conformity to his doctrine, I ascribe to the power of God. I know you, in conformity to your principles, ascribe them to the power of nature. But I still believe, according to the old, scriptural hypothesis, that whenever, in hearing the word of God, men are filled with peace and love, God “confirms that word by the Holy Ghost given unto those that hear it.” 26. As a further proof of my enthusiasm you mention “special directions, mission, and calls by immediate revela tion.” (Page 67.) For an instance of which, you cite those words, “I know, and am assured, that God sent forth his light and his truth.” I did know this. But do I say, “by immediate revelation?” Not a tittle about it. This is your own ingenious improvement upon my words. “However, it was by a special direction. For your own words in the same paragraph are, “From the direction I received from God this day, touching an affair of the greatest importance.’” (Pages 68, 69.) What, are these words in the same paragraph with those, “I know and am assured, God sent forth his light and his truth?” Why then do you tear the paragraph in two, and put part in your sixty-seventh, part in your sixty-eighth and sixty-ninth pages? O, for a plain reason,-to make it look like two instances of enthusiasm, otherwise it could have made but one at the most.

This renewed the concern I felt some time since, when I was informed (in letters which I have still by me) of your * Thus translated by Gifford: “Again Crispinus comes!”-EDIT. Lordship's publishing this account, both at Plymouth in Devonshire, and at Truro in Cornwall, before the Clergy assembled from all parts of those counties, at the solemn season of your Lordship’s visiting your diocese. But I was not informed that your Lordship showed a deep concern for the honour of God, which you supposed to be so dreadfully violated, or a tender compassion for a Presbyter whom you believed to be rushing into everlasting destruction. 3. In order to be more fully informed, on Saturday, August 25, 1750, Mr. Trembath, of St. Ginnys, Mr. Haime, of Shaftes bury, and I, called at Mr. Morgan's, at Mitchel. The servant telling me her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the “honest, sensible woman.” I imme diately asked, “Did I ever tell you or your husband that you would be damned if you took any money of me?” (So the story ran in the first part of the “Comparison; ” it has now undergone a very considerable alteration.) “Or did you or he ever affirm,” (another circumstance related at Truro,) “that I was rude with your maid?” She replied, vehemently, “Sir, I never said you was, or that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But we have been belied as well as our neighbours.” She added, “When the Bishop came down last, he sent us word that he would dine at our house; but he did not, being invited to a neighbouring gentle man's. He sent for me thither, and said, ‘Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down? Do you know Mr. Wesley? Did not he tell you, you would be damned if you took any money of him? And did not he offer rudeness to your maid?' I told him, ‘No, my Lord; he never said any such thing to me, nor to my husband that I know of He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine.

2. In your first section, in order to prove the “vain boast ing of the Methodists,” you quote a part of the following sentence: “When hath religion, I will not say, since the Reformation, but since the time of Constantine the Great, made so large a progress in any nation, within so short a space?” (I beg any impartial person to read the whole pas sage, from the eighty-fourth to the ninetieth page of the Third Appeal.”) I repeat the question, giving the glory to God; and, I trust, without either boasting or enthusiasm. In your second, you cite (and murder) four or five lines. from one of my Journals, “as instances of the persuasive eloquence of the Methodist Preachers.” (Pages 1, 9.) But it unfortunately happens, that neither of the sentences you quote were spoke by any Preacher at all. You know full well the one was used only in a private letter; the other by a woman on a bed of sickness. 3. You next undertake to prove “the most insufferable pride and vanity of the Methodists.” (Section iii., p. 12, &c.) For this end you quote five passages from my Journals, and one from the Third Appeal. The first was wrote in the anguish of my heart, to which I gave vent (between God and my own soul) by breaking out, not into “confidence of boasting,” as you term it, but into those expressions of bitter sorrow : “I went to America to convert the Indians. But O ! who shall convert me?” (Vol. I. p. 74.) Some of the words which follow you have picked out, and very honestly laid before your reader, without either the beginning or end, or one word of the occasion or manner wherein they were spoken. Your next quotation is equally fair and generous: “Are they read in philosophy? So was I,” &c. (Ibid. p. 76, &c.) This whole “string of self-commendation,” as you call it, being there brought, ex professo, to prove that, notwith standing all this, which I once piqued myself upon, I was at that hour in a state of damnation | The third is a plain narrative of the manner wherein many of Bristol expressed their joy on my coming unexpectedly into the room, after I had been some time at London. (Vol.I. p.

In the close of your fourth section, you charge me with “shuffling and prevaricating with regard to extraordinary gifts and miraculous powers.” Of these I shall have occasion to speak by and by. At present I need only return the compli ment, by charging you with gross, wilful prevarication, from the beginning of your book to the end. Some instances of this have appeared already. Many more will appear in due time. 7. Your fifth charges me with an “affectation of prophesy ing.” Your first proof of it is this:-- “It was about this time that the soldier was executed. For some time I had visited him every day. But when the love of God was shed abroad in his heart, I told him, “Do not expect to see me any more: I believe Satan will separate us for a season.’ Accordingly, the next day, I was informed, the commanding , officer had given strict orders, that neither Mr. Wesley, nor any of his people, should be admitted.” (Vol. I. p. 266.) I did believe so, having seen many such things before; yet with out affecting a spirit of prophecy. But that I do claim it, you will prove, Secondly, from my mentioning “the great work which God intends, and is now beginning, to work over all the earth.” By what art you ex tract such a conclusion out of such premises, I know not. That God intends this, none who believe the Scripture doubt. And that he has begun it, both in Europe and America, any, who will make use of their eyes and ears, may know without any “miraculous gift of prophesying.” 8. In your sixth section, you assert, that I lay claim to other miraculous gifts. (Page 45.) As you borrow this objection from Mr. Church, I need only give the same answer I gave before. “‘I shall give,’” says Mr. Church, “‘but one account more, and that is, what you give of yourself.’ The sum whereof is, “At two several times, being ill, and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease. I did so. I assert the fact still.

The rule of silence was religiously observed by St. Dominic.” I have repeated more of your words than I otherwise should, in order to show to a demonstration, that a man of a lively imagination may run a parallel to any length, without any foundation in nature. You begin, “The same whim which led Mr. Wesley to observe an absolute silence for two days; ” and so run on to St. Bonaventura, St. Agatho, and I know not whom. But did Mr. Wesley “observe an absolute silence for two days?” No.; not for one hour. My words, “I spoke to none at all for fourscore miles together,” (Vol. I. p. 313,) imply neither more nor less than that I spoke to none “concerning the things of God,” as it is in the words immediately preceding. And you know this as well as I. But it is all one for that. Wit, not truth, is the point you aim at. My supposed inconsistency, with regard to the Moravians, which you likewise drag in (as they say) by head and shoulders, I have shown, again and again, to be no inconsistency at all; particularly in both the Letters to Mr. Church. 10. Well, but as to conflicts with Satan: “Nor can Mr. Wesley,” you say, “escape the attacks of this infernal spirit,” namely, “suggesting distrustful thoughts, and buffeting him with inward temptations.” Sir, did you never hear of any one so attacked, unless among the Papists or Methodists? How deeply * then are you experienced both in the ways of God, and the devices of Satan | You add, with regard to a case mentioned in the Fourth Journal, Vol. I. p. 271, “Though I am not convinced that these fits of laughing are to be ascribed to Satan, yet I entirely agree, that they are involuntary and unavoidable.” I am glad we agree so far. But I must still go farther: I cannot but ascribe them to a preternatural agent; having observed so many circumstances attending them which cannot be accounted for by any natural causes. Under the head of conflicts with Satan, you observe farther, “Mr.

95, &c.,) is what you next undertake to prove. Your loose declamation with which you open the cause, I pass over, as it rests on your own bare word; and haste to your main reason, drawn from my sentiments and practice with regard to the Moravians. “He represents them,” you say, “in the blackest colours; yet declares, in the main, they are some of the best people in the world. His love and esteem for them increases more and more. His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds. But still Methodism is the strongest barrier against the Moravian doctrines and principles.” Sir, I bear you witness you have learned one principle, at least, from those with whom you have lately conversed; namely, that no faith is to be kept with heretics; of which you have given us abundant proof. For you know I have fully answered every article of this charge; which you repeat, as if I had not opened my lips about it. You know that there is not one grain of truth in several things which you here positively assert. For instance: “His love and esteem of them increases more and more.” Not so; no more than my love and esteem for you. I love you both; but I do not much esteem either. Again: “His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds.” When? Where? I know.not that ten of my disciples, as you call them, have gone over to them for twice ten months. O Sir, consider ! How do you know but some of your disciples may tell your name? 17. With the same veracity you go on: “In “The Character of a Methodist,’ those of the sect are described as having all the virtues that can adorn the Christian profession. But in their ‘Journals’ you find them waspish, condemning all the world, except themselves; and among themselves perpetual broils and confusions, with various other irregularities and vices.” I answer, (1.) The tract you refer to (as is expressly declared in the preface) does not describe what the Methodists are already; but what they desire to be, and what they will be then when they fully practise the doctrine they hear.

But in their ‘Journals’ you find them waspish, condemning all the world, except themselves; and among themselves perpetual broils and confusions, with various other irregularities and vices.” I answer, (1.) The tract you refer to (as is expressly declared in the preface) does not describe what the Methodists are already; but what they desire to be, and what they will be then when they fully practise the doctrine they hear. (2.) Be pleased to point the pages in my Journals which mention those “various irregularities and vices.” Of their “perpetual broils and confusions.” I shall speak under their proper head. You add: “Sometimes they are so far from fearing death, that they wish it: But the keenness of the edge is soon . blunted. They are full of dreadful apprehensions that the Clergy intend to murder them.” Do you mean me, Sir? I plead, Not Guilty. I never had any such apprehension. Yet I suppose you designed the compliment for me, by your dragging in two or three broken sentences from my First Journal. But how little to the purpose ! seeing at the time that was written, I had never pretended to be above the fear of death. So that this is no proof of the point in view,--of the “unsteadiness of my sentiments or practice.” 18. You proceed: “One day they fancy it their duty to preach; the next, they preach with great reluctance.” Very true! But they fancy it their duty still; else they would not preach at all. This, therefore, does not prove any in equality either of sentiment or practice. “Mr. Wesley is sometimes quite averse from speaking, and then perplexed with the doubt, Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit, or a temptation from nature and the evil one?” Just of a piece with the rest. The sentence runs thus: “I went several times with a design to speak to the sailors, but could not. I mean, I was quite averse from speaking. Is not this what men commonly mean by, “I could not speak?’ And is this a sufficient cause of silence or no? Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit, or a temptation from nature or the evil one?” Sir, I was in no doubt at all on the occasion.

Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit, or a temptation from nature or the evil one?” Sir, I was in no doubt at all on the occasion. Nor did I intend to express any in these words; but to appeal to men’s conscience, whether what they call “a prohibition from the good Spirit,” be not a mere “temptation from nature or the evilone.” 19. In the next section you are to show “the art, cunning, and sophistry of the Methodists, who, when hard pressed by argument, run themselves into inconsistency and self-contradic tion; and occasionally either defend or give up some of their favourite notions and principal points.” (Section xii. p. 102.) I dare say, Sir, you will not put them to the trial. Argu ment lies out of the way of one, -Solutos Qui captat risus hominum famamque dicacis." But to the proof. “Mr. Wesley,” you say, “at one time declares for a disinterested love of God; at another, declares, There is no one caution in all the Bible against the selfish love of God.” Nay, Sir, I will tell you what is stranger still: Mr. Wesley holds, at one time, both sides of this contradiction. I now declare both that “all true love is disinterested, ‘seeketh not her own;' and that there is no one caution in all the Bible against the selfish love of God.” What, have I the art to slip out of your hands again? “Pardon me,” as your old friend says, “for being jocular.” 20. You add, altius insurgens : + “But it is a considerable * One that affects the droll, and loves to raise a horse-laugh. + Rising to more exalted strains.-EDIT. offence to charge another wrongfully, and contradict himself about the doctrine of assurance.” To prove this upon me, you bring my own words: “The assurance we preach is of quite another kind from that Mr. Bedford writes against. We speak of an assurance of our present pardon; not, as he does, of our final perseverance.” (Vol. I. p. 160.) “Mr. Wesley might have considered,” you say, “that when they talk of “assurance of pardon and salvation, the world will extend the meaning of the words to our eternal state.” I do consider it, Sir; and therefore I never use that phrase either in preaching or writing.

Wesley might have considered,” you say, “that when they talk of “assurance of pardon and salvation, the world will extend the meaning of the words to our eternal state.” I do consider it, Sir; and therefore I never use that phrase either in preaching or writing. “Assurance of pardon and salvation” is an expression that never comes out of my lips; and if Mr. Whitefield does use it, yet he does not preach such an assurance as the privilege of all Christians. “But Mr. Wesley himself says, that, “though a full assur ance of faith does not necessarily imply a full assurance of our future perseverance, yet some have both the one and the other.” And now what becomes of his charge against Mr. Bedford ? And is it not mere evasion to say afterwards, ‘This is not properly an assurance of what is future?’” Sir, this argument presses me very hard 1 May I not be allowed a little evasion now? Come, for once I will try to do without it, and to answer flat and plain. And I answer, (1.) That faith is one thing; the full assur ance of faith another. (2.) That even the full assurance of faith does not imply the full assurance of perseverance: This bears another name, being styled by St. Paul, “the full assur ance of hope.” (3.) Some Christians have only the first of these; they have faith, but mixed with doubts and fears. Some have also the full assurance of faith, a full conviction of present pardon; and yet not the full assurance of hope; not a full conviction of their future perseverance. (4.) The faith which we preach, as necessary to all Christians, is the first of these, and no other. Therefore, (5.) It is no evasion at all to say, “This (the faith which we preach as necessary to all Christians) is not properly an assurance of what is future.” And consequently, my charge against Mr. Bedford stands good, that his Sermon on Assurance is an ignoratio elenchi, an “ignorance of the point in question,” from beginning to end. Therefore, neither do I “charge another wrongfully, nor contradict myself about the doctrine of assurances.” 21. To prove my art, cunning, and evasion, you instance next in the case of impulses and impressions.

To prove my art, cunning, and evasion, you instance next in the case of impulses and impressions. You begin, “With what pertinacious confidence have impulses, impres sions, feelings, &c., been advanced into certain rules of con duct Their followers have been taught to depend upon them as sure guides and infallible proofs.” To support this weighty charge, you bring one single scrap, about a line and a quarter, from one of my Journals. The words are these: “By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced.” Convinced of what? It immedi ately follows, “Of unbelief, having no such faith as will pre vent my heart from being troubled.” I here assert, that inward feeling or consciousness is the most infallible of proofs of unbelief,-of the want of such a faith as will prevent the heart's being troubled. But do I here “advance impressions, impulses, feelings, &c., into cer tain rules of conduct?” or anywhere else? You may just as well say, I advance them into certain proofs of transub stantiation. Neither in writing, in preaching, nor in private conversa tion, have I ever “taught any of my followers to depend upon them as sure guides or infallible proofs" of anything. Nay, you yourself own, I have taught quite the reverse; and that at my very first setting out. Then, as well as ever since, I have told the societies, “they were not to judge by their own inward feelings. I warned them, all these were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature. They might be from God, or they might not, and were therefore to be tried by a further rule, to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony.” (Vol. I. p. 206.) This is what I have taught from first to last. And now, Sir, what becomes of your heavy charge? On which side lies the “pertinacious confidence” now? How clearly have you made out my inconsistency and self-contradiction and that I “occasionally either defend or give up my favourite notions and principal points ” 22. “Inspiration, and the extraordinary calls and guidances of the Holy Ghost, are ” what you next affirm to be “given up.” (Section xiii. p. 106, &c.) Not by me. I do not “give up” one tittle on this head, which I ever maintained.

What else can be said even of prayer, public or private, in the manner wherein you generally perform it? as a thing of course, running round and round, in the same dull track, without either the knowledge or the love of God; without one heavenly temper, either attained or improved?” (Farther Appeal, Third Part, Vol. VIII. p. 202.) Now, Sir, what room is there for your own exclamations? --“What sort of heavenly temper is his? How can he pos sibly, consistently with charity, call this our general perform ance?” Sir, I do not. I only appeal to the conscience of you, and each particular reader, whether this is, or is not, the manner wherein you (in the singular number) generally per form public or private prayer. “How, possibly, without being omniscient, can he affirm, that we (I presume you mean all the members of our Church) pray without one heavenly temper? or know anything at all of our private devotions? How monstrous is all this 1” Recollect yourself, Sir. If your terror is real, you are more afraid than hurt. I do not affirm any such thing. I do not take upon me to know any thing at all of your private devotions. But I suppose I may inquire, without offence, and beg you seriously to examine yourself before God. So you have brought no one proof, that “scepticism, infi delity, and Atheism are either constituent parts or genuine consequences of Methodism.” Therefore your florid decla mation, in the following pages, is entirely out of its place. And you might have spared yourself the trouble of account ing for what has no being, but in your own imagination. 27. You charge the Methodists next with “an uncharitable spirit.” (Section xv. p. 115, &c.) All you advance in proof of this, as if it were from my writings, but without naming either page or book, I have nothing to do with. But what ever you tell me where to find, I shall carefully consider.

p. 219.) Sir, do I here “summon my opponents to the bar of judg ment?” So you would make me do, by quoting only that scrap, “I cite you all, before ‘the Judge of all the earth!’” You then add, with equal charity and sincerity, “Here you have the true spirit of an enthusiast, flushed with a modest assur ance of his own salvation, and the charitable prospect of the damnation of others.” O Sir, never name modesty more ! Here end your laboured attempts to show the “uncharitable spirit” of the Methodists; who, for anything you have shown to the contrary, may be the most charitable people under the Sun. 30. You charge the Methodists next with “violation and contempt of order and authority;” (Section xviii. p. 124;) namely, the authority of the governors of the Church. I have answered every article of this charge, in the Second and Third Parts of the “Farther Appeal,” and the “Letter to Mr. Church.” When you have been so good as to reply to what is there advanced, I may possibly say something more. What you offer of your own upon this head, I shall consider without delay:-- “Women and boys are actually employed in this ministry of public preaching.” Please to tell me where. I know them not, nor ever heard of them before. You add, what is more marvellous still, “I speak from per sonal knowledge, that sometimes, a little before delivering of the elements at the communion, three or four Methodists together will take it into their heads to go away; that sometimes, while the sentences of the offertory were reading, they have called out to the Minister who carried the bason, reproaching him for ask ing alms of them; that sometimes, when the Minister has deli vered the bread into their hands, instead of eating it, they would slip it into their pockets.” Sir, you must show your face, before these stories will find credit on your bare asseveration. “Yet they are surprised,” you say, “that every man in his senses does not, without the least hesitation, join them.” Sir, I am surprised (unless you are not in your senses) at your advancing such a barefaced falsehood. 31. You go on: “Under this head may, not improperly, be considered their undutiful behaviour to the civil powers.” What proof have you of this?

42. You add, “How the case stands, in fact, as to the num ber of converts among the Methodists, and real reformation of life to the certain and known duties of the gospel, is matter of difficult determination.” Not at all. What is easier to be deter mined, than, (1.) That A. B. of Exeter, or Tiverton, was for many years a notorious drunkard, common-swearer, or Sab bath-breaker? (2.) That he is not so now; that he is really reformed from drunkenness, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, to sobriety and the other certain and known duties of the gospel? “But from what inquiry” you “can make, there is no reason to think them, for the generality, better than their neighbours.” Better than their neighbours ? Why, are they no worse than their neighbours? Then, what have you been doing all this time? But whether they are better or worse than their neigh bours, they are undeniably better than themselves: I mean, better than they were before they heard this preaching “in the certain and known duties of the gospel.” But you desire us to “consider their black art of calumny; their uncharitableness; their excessive pride and vanity; their scepticism, doubts, and disbelief of God and Christ; their disorderly practices, and contempt of authority; their bitter envying and inveterate broils among themselves; their coolness for good works.” Sir, we will consider all these, when you have proved them. Till then this is mere brutum fulmen.* 43. You proceed: “If we take Mr. Wesley’s own account, it falls very short of any considerable reformation.” You mean, if we take that part of his account which you are pleased to transcribe. Atticam elegantiam 1 + But let any impartial man read my whole aceount, and then judge. However, hence you infer that “the new reformers have made but a slow and slight progress in the reformation of manners.” As a full answer to this I need only transcribe a page or two from the last “Appeal,” pp. 237, 238, &c. : “God begins a glorious work in our land. You set your self against it with your might; to prevent its beginning where it does not yet appear, and to destroy it wherever it does. In part you prevail. You keep many from hearing the word that is able to save their souls.

It were great pity to disturb you in the enjoyment of it. A Seventh argument you ground on those words in the “Plain Account of the People called Methodists: ” “It is a point we chiefly insist upon, that orthodoxy or right opinions is a very slender part of religion, if any part of it at all.” “The plain consequence whereof is,” (so you affirm,) “that teaching and believing the fundamental errors of Popery, with the whole train of their abominations and idolatries, are of very little moment, if any.” Strain again, Sir ; pull hard, or you will never be able to drag this conclusion out of these premises. I assert, “(1.) That in a truly righteous man, right opinions are a very slender part of religion. (2.) That in an irreligious, a profane man, they are not any part of religion at all; such a man not being one jot more religious because he is orthodox.” Sir, it does not follow from either of these propositions, that wrong opinions are not an hinderance to religion; and much less, that “teaching and believing the fundamental errors of Popery, with the whole train of their abominations and idol atries,” (practised, I presume you mean, as well as taught and believed,) “are of very little moment, if any.” I am so far from saying or thinking this, that, in my printed letter to a Priest of that communion, (did you never read it, or hear of it before ?) are these express words: “I pity you much, having the same assurance, that Jesus is the Christ, and that no Romanist can expect to be saved, accord ing to the terms of his covenant.” (Vol. I. p. 220.) Do you term this “an extenuation of their abominations; a reducing them to almost a mere nothing?” 47. You argue, Eighthly, thus: “The Methodist doctrine of impressions and assurances holds equally for Popish enthu siasts.” This needs no answer; I have already shown that the Methodist doctrine in these respects is both scriptural and rational. Your Ninth argument is, “Their sudden conversions stand upon the same footing with the Popish.” You should say, “are a proof that they are promoting Popery.” I leave you to enjoy this argument also. But the dreadful one you reserve for the last; namely, our “recommending Popish books. One is the Life of Mr. de Renty, of which Mr.

(2.) When Mr. C., and two other Predestinarians, (these were the persons) affirmed they had heard both my brother and me preach Popery, they meant neither more nor less thereby than the doctrine of universal redemption. “Some connexion between the doctrines of Methodists and Papists hath been shown through this whole Comparison.” Shown / But how? By the same art of wire-drawing and deciphering, which would prove an equal connexion between the Methodists and Mahometans. “Jesuits have often mingled, and been the ringleaders, among our enthusiastic sectaries.” Sir, I am greatly obliged to you for your compliment, as well as for your parallel of Mr. Faithful Commim. And pray, Sir, at what time do you think it was that I first mingled with those enthusiastic sectaries? when I came back from Germany, or when I returned from Georgia, or while I was at Lincoln College? Although the plot itself might be laid before, when I was at Christ Church, or at the Charterhouse school. But “a Jesuit’s or enthusiast's declaring against Popery is no test of their sincerity.” Most sure; nor is a nameless per son’s declaring against Methodism any proof that he is not a Jesuit. I remember well, when a well-dressed man, taking his stand not far from Moorfields, had gathered a large company, and was vehemently asserting, that “those rogues, the Method ists, were all Papists;” till a gentleman coming by, fixed his eye on him, and cried, “Stop that man! I know him person ally; he is a Romish Priest.” I know not that anything remains on this head which bears so much as the face of an argument. So that, of all the charges you have brought, (and truly you have not been sparing) there is not one wherein your proof falls more miserably short than in this, that “the Methodists are advancing Popery.” 49. I have at length gone through your whole performance, weighed whatever you cite from my writings, and shown at large how far those passages are from proving all, or any part, of your charge.

Morgan, at Mitchel, “You are in hell; you are damned already.” Secondly, that I asked her to live upon free cost. Thirdly, that she deter mined to admit no more Methodists into her house. At first I thought so silly and improbable a story neither deserved nor required a confutation; but when my friends thought otherwise, I called on Mrs. Morgan, who denied she ever said any such thing. I wrote down her words; part of which I transcribed in my letter to your Lordship, as follows:- “On Saturday, August 25, 1750, Mr. Trembath, of St. Gin nys, Mr. Haime, of Shaftesbury, and I, called at Mr. Morgan's, at Mitchel. The servant telling me her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the ‘honest, sensible woman.’ I immediately asked, ‘Did I ever tell you or your husband, that you would be damned if you took any money of me?’ (So the story ran in the first part of the ‘Comparison;’ it has now undergone a very considerable alteration.) ‘Or did * The Bishop of Exeter's Letter, pp. 2, 3. you or he ever affirm,” (another circumstance related at Truro,) ‘that I was rude with your maid?' She replied, vehemently, ‘Sir, I never said you was, or that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But we have been belied as well as our neighbours. She added, “When the Bishop came down last, he sent us word he would dine at our house; but he did not, being invited to a neighbouring gentleman's. He sent for me thither, and said, Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down * Do you know Mr. Wesley * Did not he tell you, you would be damned if you took any money of him 2 And did not he offer rudeness to your maid 2 I told him, No, my Lord; he never said any such thing to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine.

“I fear God and honour the King. I earnestly desire to be at peace with all men. I have not willingly given any offence, either to the Magistrates, the Clergy, or any of the inhabitants of the city of Cork; neither do I desire anything of them, but to be treated (I will not say, as a Clergyman, a gentleman, or a Christian, but) with such justice and humanity as are due to a Jew, a Turk, or a Pagan. “I am, “Sir, “Your obedient servant, II. l. Your performance is dated, May 28th, the most material parts of which I am now to consider. It contains, First, a charge against the Methodist Preachers: Secondly, a defence of the Corporation and Clergy of Cork. With regard to your charge against those Preachers, may I take the liberty to inquire why you drop six out of the eleven that have been at Cork, viz., Mr. Swindells, Wheatly, Lar wood, Skelton, Tucker, and Haughton P Can you glean up no story concerning these; or is it out of mere compassion that you spare them ? 2. But before I proceed, I must beg leave to ask, Who is this evidence against the other five? Why, one that neither dares show his face, nor tell his name, or the place of his abode; one that is ashamed (and truly not without cause) of the dirty work he is employed in; so that we could not even conjecture who he was, but that his speech bewrayeth him. How much credit is due to such an evidence, let any man of reason judge. 3. This worthy witness falls foul upon Mr. Cownly, and miserably murders a tale he has got by the end. (Page 13.) Sir, Mr. M. is nothing obliged to you for bringing the charac 'ter of his niece into question. He is perfectly satisfied that Mr. C. acted, in that whole affair, with the strictest regard both to honour and conscience. You next aver, that Mr. Reeves “asked a young woman, whether she had a mind to go to hell with her father.” (Page 16.) It is possible. I will neither deny nor affirm it without some better proof. But, suppose he did; unless I know the circumstances of the case, I could not say whether he spoke right or wrong. 4.

4. But what is this to the “monstrous, shocking, amazing blasphemy, spoken by Mr. Charles Wesley? who one day,” you say, “preaching on Hammond's Marsh, called out, ‘Has any of you got the Spirit?’ and when none answered, said, ‘I am sure some of you have got it; for I feel virtue go out of me.’” (Page 18.) Sir, do you expect any one to believe this story? I doubt it will not pass even at Cork; unless with your wise friend, who said, “Methodists! Ay, they are the people who place all their religion in wearing long whiskers.” 5. In the same page, you attack Mr. Williams for applying those words, “I thy Maker am thy husband.” Sir, by the same rule that you conclude “these expressions could only '78 LETTER. To flow from a mind full of lascivious ideas,” you may conclude the forty-fifth Psalm to be only a wanton sonnet, and the Canticles a counterpart to Rochester’s Poems. But you say, he likewise “made use of unwarrantable expres sions, particularly with regard to faith and good works; and the next day denied that he had used them.” (Pages 10, 1].) Sir, your word is not proof of this. Be pleased to produce proper vouchers of the facts; and I will then give a farther answer. Likewise, as to his “indecent and irreverent behaviour at church, turning all the Preacher said into ridicule, so that numbers asked, in your hearing, why the Churchwardens did not put the profane, wicked scoundrel in the stocks; ” my present answer is, I doubt the facts. Will your “men of undoubted character” be so good as to attest them? 6. Of all these, Mr. Williams, Cownly, Reeves, Haughton, Larwood, Skelton, Swindells, Tucker, and Wheatly, you pro nounce in the lump, that they are “a parcel of vagabond, illi terate babblers;” (pages 3,4;) of whom “every body that has the least share of reason must know,” that, though “they amuse the populace with nonsense, ribaldry, and blasphemy, they are not capable of writing orthography or good sense.” Sir, that is not an adjudged case. Some who have a little share of reason, think they are capable both of speaking and writing good sense.

I answer, Secondly, there is no analogy between claiming. this inspiration of the Spirit, who, you allow, “assists, and will assist, all true believers to the end of the world;” (page 18;) and claiming those extraordinary operations of the Spirit which were vouchsafed to the Apostles. The former both you and I pretend to; yea, and enjoy, or we are no believers. The latter you do not pretend to; nor do I, nor any that are in connexion with me. 9. “But you do pretend to them. For you pray that ‘signs and wonders may still be wrought in the name of Jesus.’” True; but what signs and wonders? The conversion of sin ners; the “healing the broken in heart; the turning men from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God.” These and these only are the signs and wonders which were mentioned in that prayer. And did I not see these signs and wonders still wrought, I would sooner hew wood, or draw water, than preach the gospel. For those are to me very awful words which our Lord speaks of Prophets or Teachers: “Ye shall know them.” (whether they are true or false Prophets) “by their fruits. Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire.” What fruit you have brought forth at Reymerston, I know not; God knoweth. 10. “Your followers, however, do pretend to the grace of a miraculous conversion.” Is there any conversion that is not miraculous? Is conversion a natural or supernatural work? I suppose all who allow there is any such thing believe it to be supernatural. And what is the difference between a super natural and a miraculous work, I am yet to learn. “But they say, that at such a time, and in such a manner, the divine illumination shone upon them; Jesus knocked at the door of their hearts, and the Holy Ghost descended upon their souls;” that is, in plain terms, raillery apart, at a particular time, which they cannot easily forget, God did, in so eminent a manner as they never experienced before, “enlighten their understanding,” (they are your own words,) “comfort and purify their hearts, and give his heavenly Spirit to dwell in them.” But what has all this to do with those extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit? 11.

11. “Under these pretended impressions, their next advance is to a call to preach the word themselves; and forth they issue, as under the immediate inspiration of God's Spirit, with the language of Apostles, and zeal of Martyrs, to publish the gos pel, as if they were among our remotest ancestors, strangers to the name of Christ.” (Pages 20, 21.) The plain truth is this: One in five hundred of those whom God so enlightens and comforts, sooner or later, believes it to be his duty to call other sinners to repentance. Such an one commonly stifles this conviction till he is so uneasy he can stifle it no longer. He then consults one or more of those whom he believes to be competent judges; and, under the direction of these, goes on, step by step, from a narrower to a larger sphere ThE REV. M.R. POTTER. 93 of action. Meantime he endeavours to use only “the language of the Apostles,” to speak the things of the Spirit in the words of the Spirit. And he longs and prays for the “zeal of Mar tyrs,” continually finding the need thereof; seeing our present countrymen are as great strangers to the mind that was in Christ, as our ancestors were to his name. 12. “But the Holy Spirit no longer comes from heaven like a rushing mighty wind. It no longer appears in cloven tongues, as of fire.” I wonder who imagines it does. “We now dis cern not between his suggestions and the motions of our own rational nature.” Many times we do not; but at other times, God may give such peace or joy, and such love to himself and all mankind, as we are sure are not “the motions of our own nature.” “To say, then, that the Holy Spirit began his work at such a time, and continued it so long in such a manner, is as vain as to account for the blowing of the wind.” Hold ! accounting for is not the thing. To make a parallel, it must be, “is as vain as to say, that the wind began to blow at such a time, and continued so long in such a manner.” And where is the vanity of this?

We dreamed of nothing twenty-five years ago, but instructing our pupils in religion and learning, and a few prisoners in the common principles of Christianity. You go on: “They were ambitious of being accounted Missionaries, immediately de legated by Heaven to correct the errors of Bishops and Arch bishops, and reform their abuses; to instruct the Clergy in the true nature of Christianity, and to caution the laity not to venture their souls in any such unhallowed hands as refused to be initiated in all the mysteries of Methodism.” (Pages 20, 21.) Well asserted indeed; but where is the proof of any one of these propositions? I must insist upon this; clear, cogent proof: Else they must be set down for so many glaring falsehoods. 4. “The Church of Rome (to which on so many accounts they were much obliged, and as gratefully returned the obliga tion) taught them to set up for infallible interpreters of Scrip ture.” (Page 54.) Pray on what accounts are we “obliged to the Church of Rome?” And how have we “returned the obligation?” I beg you would please, (1.) To explain this; and, (2.) To prove that we ever yet (whoever taught us) “set up for infallible interpreters of Scripture.” So far from it, that we have over and over declared, in print as well as in public preaching, “We are no more to expect any living man to be infallible than to be omniscient.” (Vol. VI. p. 4.) 5. “As to other extraordinary gifts, influences, and operations of the Holy Ghost, no man who has but once dipped into their Journals, and other ostentatious trash of the same kind, can doubt their looking upon themselves as not coming one whit behind the greatest of the Apostles.” (Methodism Examined, p. 21.) I acquit you, Sir, of ever having “once dipped into that ostentatious trash.” I do not accuse you of having read so much as the titles of my Journals. I say, my Journals; for (as little as you seem to know it) my brother has published none. I therefore look upon this as simple ignorance. You talk thus, because you know no better. You do not know, that in these very Journals I utterly disclaim the “extraordinarygifts of the Spirit,” and all other “influences and operations of the Holy Ghost” than those that are common to all real Christians. THE REV. MIR. DoWNES.

We do believe regeneration, or, in plain English, the new birth, to be as miraculous or super natural a work now as it was seventeen hundred years ago. We likewise believe, that the spiritual life, which commences when we are born again, must, in the nature of the thing, have a first moment, as well as the natural. But we say again and again, we are concerned for the substance of the work, not the circum stance. Let it be wrought at all, and we will not contend whe therit be wrought gradually or instantaneously. “But what are the signs that it is wrought?” We never said or thought, that they were either “frightful tremors of body,” or “convulsive agonies of mind; ” (I presume you mean, agonies of mind at tended with bodily convulsions;) although we know many per sons who, before this change was wrought, felt much fear and sorrow of mind, which in some of these had such an effect on the body as to make all their bones to shake. Neither did we ever deny, that it is “a work graciously begun by the Holy Spirit,” enlightening our understanding, (which, I suppose, you call “our rational powers and faculties,”) as well as influencing our affections. And it is certain, he “gradually carries on this work,” by continuing to influence all the powers of the soul; and that the outward sign of this inward work is, “sincere and universal obedience.” 13. A Sixth charge is: “They treat Christianity as a wild, enthusiastic scheme, which will bear no examination.” (Page 30.) Where or when? In what sermon? In what tract, practical or polemical? I wholly deny the charge. I have myself closely and carefully examined every part of it, every verse of the New Testament, in the original, as well as in our own and other translations. 14. Nearly allied to this is the threadbare charge of enthu siasm, with which you frequently and largely compliment us. But as this also is asserted only, and not proved, it falls to the ground of itself. Meantime, your asserting it, is a plain proof that you know nothing of the men you talk of Be cause you know them not, you so boldly say, “One advantage we have over them, and that is reason.” Nay, that is the very question.

Meantime, your asserting it, is a plain proof that you know nothing of the men you talk of Be cause you know them not, you so boldly say, “One advantage we have over them, and that is reason.” Nay, that is the very question. I appeal to all mankind, whether you have it, or no. However, you are sure we have it not, and are never likely to have. For “reason,” you say, “cannot do much with an enthusiast, whose first principle is, to have no thing to do with reason, but resolve all his religious opinions and notions into immediate inspiration.” Then, by your own account, I am no enthusiast; for I resolve none of my notions into immediate inspiration. I have something to do with rea son; perhaps as much as many of those who make no account of my labours. And I am ready to give up every opinion which I cannot by calm, clear reason defend. Whenever, therefore, you will try what you can do by argument, which you have not done yet, I wait your leisure, and will follow you step by step, which way soever you lead. 15. “But is not this plain proof of the enthusiasm of the Methodists, that they despise human learning, and make a loud and terrible outcry against it?” Pray, Sir, when and where was this done? Be so good as to point out the time and place; for I am quite a stranger to it. I believe, indeed, and so do you, that many men make an ill use of their learn ing. But so they do of their Bibles: Therefore, this is no reason for despising or crying out against it. I would use it just as far as it will go; how far I apprehend it may be of use, how far I judge it to be expedient at least, if not neces sary, for a Clergyman, you might have seen in the “Earnest Address to the Clergy.” But, in the meantime, I bless God that there is a more excellent gift than either the knowledge of languages or philosophy. For tongues, and knowledge, and learning, will vanish away; but love never faileth. 16. I think this is all you have said which is any way material concerning the doctrines of the Methodists.

But the bold, frontless manner wherein you advance it, obliges me so to do. Know then, Sir, that you have no authority, either from Scripture or reason, to judge of other men by yourself. If your own conscience convicts you of loving money, of “casting a sheep’s eye at the unrighteous mammon,” humble yourself before God, if haply the thoughts and desires of your heart may be forgiven you. But, blessed be God, my conscience is clear. My heart does not condemn me in this matter. I know, and God knoweth, that I have no desire to load myself with thick clay; that I love money no more than I love the mire in the streets; that I seek it not. And I have it not, any more than suffices for food and raiment, for the plain con veniences of life. I pay no court to it at all, or to those that have it, either with cunning or without. For myself, for my own use, I raise no contributions, either great or small. The weekly contributions of our community, (which are freely given, not squeezed out of any,) as well as the gifts and offer ings at the Lord’s table, never come into my hands. I have no concern with them, not so much as the beholding them with my eyes. They are received every week by the Stewards of the society, men of well-known character in the world; and by them constantly distributed, within the week, to those whom they know to be in real necessity. As to the “very large oblations wherewith I am favoured by persons of better figure and fortune,” I know nothing of them. Be so kind as to THE REV. M.R. DowNES. 109 refresh my memory by mentioning a few of their names. I have the happiness of knowing some of great figure and fortune; some right honourable persons. But if I were to say, that all of them together had given me seven pounds in seven years, I should say...more than I could make good. And yet I doubt not, but they would freely give me anything I wanted; but, by the blessing of God, I want nothing that they can give. I want only more of the Spirit of love and power, and of an healthful mind.

I want only more of the Spirit of love and power, and of an healthful mind. As to those “many be lieving wives who practise pious frauds on their unbelieving husbands,” I know them not, no, not one of that kind; there fore I doubt the fact. If you know any such, be pleased to give us their names and places of abode. Otherwise you must bear the blame of being the lover, if not the maker, of a lie. Perhaps you will say, “Why, a great man said the same thing but a few years ago.” What, if he did? Let the frog swell as long as he can, he will not equal the ox. He might say many things, all circumstances considered, which will not come well from you, as you have neither his wit, nor sense, nor learning, nor age, nor dignity. Tibi parvula res est: Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est." If you fall upon people that meddle not with you, without either fear or wit, you may possibly find they have a little more to say for themselves than you was aware of. I “follow peace with all men; ” but if a man set upon me without either rhyme or reason, I think it my duty to defend myself, so far as truth and justice permit. Yet still I am, (if a poor enthusiast may not be so bold as to style himself your brother,) Reverend Sir, Your servant for Christ's sake, LONDON, November 17, 1759. • You are not upon a level with Bishop Warburton. Let every man know his own size. REvEREND SIR, WHEN you spoke of “heresies making their periodical revolutions,” of “Antinomianism rampant among us,” and, immediately after, of “the new lights at the Tabernacle and Foundery,” must not your hearers naturally think that Mr. Whitefield and I were reviving those heresies? But do you know the persons of whom you speak? Have you ever con versed with them? Have you read their writings? If not, is it kind, is it just, to pass so severe a censure upon them? Had you only taken the trouble of reading one tract, the “Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” you would have seen that a great part of what you affirm is what I never denied.

a madman, or a man in his senses? a knave, or an honest man? No; this is only brought in by way of illustration. The question is, of the office and opera tion of the Holy Spirit; with which the doctrine of the new birth, and indeed the whole of real religion, is connected. On a subject of so deep concern, I desire to be serious as death. But, at the same time, your Lordship will permit me to use great plainness. And this I am the more emboldened to do, because by naming my name, your Lordship, as it were, condescends to meet me on even ground. I shall consider, First, what your Lordship advances con cerning me: and, Then, what is advanced concerning the operations of the Holy Spirit. I. First. Concerning me. It is true I am here dealing in crambe repetita,” reciting objections which have been urged and answered a hundred times. But as your Lordship is pleased to repeat them again, I am obliged to repeat the answers. Your Lordship begins: “If the false prophet pretend to some extraordinary measure of the Spirit, we are directed to try that spirit by James iii. 17.” (Page 117.) I answer, 1. (as I have done many times before,) I do not pretend to any extraordinary measure of the Spirit. I pretend to no other measure of it than may be claimed by every Christian Minis ter. 2. Where are we directed to “try Prophets” by this text? How does it appear that it was given for any such purpose? It is certain we may try Christians hereby, whether they are real or pretended ones; but I know not that either St. James, or any other inspired writer, gives us the least hint of trying Prophets thereby. Your Lordship adds, “In this rule or direction for the trial of spirits, the marks are to be applied only negatively. The man in whom they are not found hath not the “wisdom from above.’ But we are not to conclude, that he has it in whom any or all of them are found.” (Page 118.) We are not to conclude that he is a Prophet, for the Apostle says nothing about Pro phets; but may we not conclude, the man in whom all these are * Thus translated from Juvenal by Gifford:-- “The selfsame subject, in the selfsame words.”--EDIT.

143, 146) which are next recited lay before me, a venerable old Clergyman calling upon me, I asked him, “Sir, would you advise me to publish these strange relations, or not?” He answered, “Are you sure of the facts?” I replied, “As sure as that I am alive.” “Then,” said he, “publish them in God’s name, and be not careful about the event.” The short of the case is this: Two young women were tor mented of the devil in an uncommon manner. Several serious persons desired my brother and me to pray with them. We, with many others, did; and they were delivered. But where, meantime, were the “exorcisms in form, according to the Roman fashion ?” I never used them : I never saw them: I know nothing about them. “Such were the blessings which Mr. W. distributed among his friends. For his enemies he had in store the judgments of Heaven.” (Page 144.) Did I then ever distribute, or profess to distribute, these? Do I claim any such power? This is the present question. Let us calmly consider the eight quotations brought to prove it. 1. “I preached at Darlaston, late a den of lions. But the fiercest of them God has called away, by a train of surprising strokes.” (Ibid.) But not by me: I was not there. 2. “I preached at R., late a place of furious riot and persecution; but quiet and calm, since the bitter Rector is gone to give an account of himself to God.” (Page 145.) 3. “Hence we rode to T-n, where the Minister was slowly recovering from a violent fit of the palsy, with which he was struck immediately after he had been preaching a virulent sermon against the Methodists.” (Page 145.) 4. “The case of Mr. W n was dreadful indeed, and too notorious to be denied.” (Ibid.) 5. “One of the chief of those who came to make the disturbance on the first instant hanged himself.” (Page 146.) 6. “I was quite surprised when I heard Mr. R. preach; that soft, smooth, tuneful voice, which he so often employed to blaspheme the work of God, was lost, without hope of recovery.” (Ibid.) 7. “Mr. C. spoke so much in favour of the rioters, that they were all discharged.

chargeable therewith. “To know the true character of Methodism.” The present point is, to know the true character of John Wesley. Now, in order to know this, we need not inquire what others were before he was born. All therefore that follows, of old Precisians, Puritans, and Independents, may stand just as it is. (Pages 184-186.) But “Mr. W. wanted to be persecuted.” (Page 187.) As this is averred over and over, I will explain myself upon it, once for all. I never desired or wanted to be persecuted. Lives there who loves his pain? I love and desire to “live peaceably with all men.” “But Bis IOP OF GLOUCESTER. 183 persecution would not come at his call.” However, it came uncalled; and, more than once or twice, it was not “mock persecution.” It was not only the huzzas of the mob; showers of stones are something more than huzzas. And whosoever saw the mob either at Walsal or Cork, (to instance in no more,) saw that they were not “in jest,” but in great earnest, eagerly athirst, not for sport, (as you suppose,) but for blood. But though I do not desire persecution, I expect it. I must, if I believe St. Paul: “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution;” (2 Tim. iii. 12;) either sooner or later, more or less, according to the wise providence of God. But I believe, “all these things work together for good to them that love God.” And from a conviction of this, they may even rejoice when they are “persecuted for righteousness' sake.” Yet, as I seldom “complain of ill treatment,” so I am never “dissatisfied with good.” (Page 188.) But I often wonder at it: And I once expressed my wonder nearly in the words of the old Athenian: “What have we done, that the world should be so civil to us?” You conclude the head: “As he who persecutes is but the tool of him that invites persecution,” (I know not who does) “the crime finally comes home to him who set the rioter at work.” (Page 191.) And is this all the proof that I am not peaceable? Then let all men judge if the charge is made good. 3.

I never affirmed either one or the other universally. That some of the former are children of God, and some of the latter children of the devil, I believe. But what will this prove? “His followers are directed by inward feelings, the impulses of an inflamed fancy;” (no more than they are directed by the Alcoran;) “his opposers, by the Scripture.” What, while they are cursing, swearing, blaspheming; beat ing and maiming men that have done them no wrong; and treating women in a manner too shocking to be repeated? (2.) The next proof is very extraordinary. My words are, “I was with two persons, who, I doubt, are properly enthusiasts: For, first, they think to attain the end without the means, which is enthusiasm properly so called. Again, they think themselves inspired of God, and are not. But false imagin ary inspiration is enthusiasm. That theirs is only imaginary inspiration appears hence,--it contradicts the law and the testimony.” (Page 221.) Now, by what art of man can this be made a proof of my partiality? Why thus: “These are wise words. But what do they amount to? Only to this; that these two persons would not take out their patents of inspiration from his office.” But what proof is there of this round assertion? Truly, none at all. Full as extraordinary is the third proof of my partiality. * Miss Gr told Mrs. Sp--, Mr. Wesley was a Papist. Upon this Miss Gr-- is anathematized. And we are told that, in consequence, she had lately been raving mad, and, as such, was tied down in her bed. Yet all these circumstances of madness have befallen his favourite saints, whom he has vindicated from the opprobrium.” (Page 222.) The passage in my Journal stands thus: “Mrs. Spa-told me, two or three nights since, ‘Miss Gr-- met me, and said, I assure you, Mr. Wesley is a Papist. Perhaps I need ob serve no more upon this, than that Miss Gr-- had lately been raving mad, in consequence of a fever;” (not of an ama thema, which never had any being;) “that, as such, she was tied down in her bed; and as soon as she was suffered to go abroad, went to Mr. Whitefield, to inquire of him whether she was not a Papist.

He says, “I told them they were not to judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by common report, or by their own inward feelings; no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revela tions, supposed to be made to the soul, any more than by their tears, or any involuntary effects wrought upon their bodies. I warned them that all these things were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature: They might be from God, or they might not; and were therefore not simply to be relied on, any more than simply to be condemned; but to be tried by a farther rule, to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony.” Now, is not this a formal recantation of what he had said just above?” (Page 235.) Nothing less, as I will show in two minutes, to every calm, impartial man. What I say now, I have said any time this thirty years; I have never varied therefrom for an hour: “Everything disputable is to be brought to the only certain test, ‘the law and the testimony.” “But did not you talk just now of visions and dreams?” Yes; but not as of a test of any thing; only as a channel through which God is sometimes pleased to convey “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance,” the indisputable fruit of his Spirit: And these, we may observe, wherever they exist, must be in wardly felt. Now, where is the prevarication, where the formal recantation? They are vanished into air. But here is more proof: “At length he gives up all these divine agitations to the devil: ‘I inquired, says he, ‘into the case of those who had lately cried out aloud during the preach ing. I found this had come upon every one of them in a moment, without any previous notice. In that moment they dropped down, lost all their strength, and were seized with violent pain. Some said they felt as if a sword were running through them; others, as if their whole body was tearing in pieces. These symptoms I can no more impute to any natural cause, than to. the Spirit of God.

W. had repelled Sophy out of revenge, because he had made proposals of marriage to her, which she * The one thing needful.--EDIT. rejected. Tuesday, 16. Mrs. W. made affidavit of it. Thurs day, September 1. A Grand Jury, prepared by Mr. Causton, found, that ‘John Wesley had broken the laws of the realm, by speaking and writing to Mrs. W. against her husband’s con sent, and by repelling her from the communion.’ “Friday, 2, was the third court-day at which I appeared, since my being required so to do by Mr. Parker. I moved for an immediate hearing, but was put off till the next court-day. On the next court-day I appeared again, as also at the two courts following; but could not be heard. Thursday, Novem ber 3, I appeared in court again; and yet again on Tuesday, November 22, on which day Mr. C. desired to speak with me, and read me an affidavit, in which it was affirmed, that I ‘ abused Mr. C. in his own house, calling him liar, villain, and so on.’ It was likewise repeated, that I had been repri manded at the last court, by Mr. C., as an enemy to, and hin derer of, the public peace. “My friends agreed with me, that the time we looked for was now come. And the next morning, calling on Mr. C., I told him, I designed to set out for England immediately. “Friday, December 2. I proposed to set out for Carolina about noon. But about ten, the Magistrates sent for me, and told me, I must not go out of the province; for I had not answered the allegations laid against me. I replied, ‘I have appeared at six or seven courts, in order to answer them. But I was not suffered so to do. After a few more words, I said, ‘You use me very ill. And so you do the Trustees. You know your business, and I know mine.’ “In the afternoon, they published an order, forbidding any to assist me in going out of the province. But I knew I had no more business there. So as soon as Evening Prayer was over, the tide then serving, I took boat at the Bluff, for Carolina.” This is the plain account of the matter. I need only add a remark or two on the pleasantry of my censurer.

“But take the affair from the beginning. He began to sus pect rivals in the year thirty-nine; for he says, “Remembering how many that came after me were preferred before me.” The very next words show in what sense. They “had attained unto the law of righteousness; ” I had not. But what has this to do with rivals 7 However, go on : “At this time, December 8, 1739, his opening the Bible afforded him but small relief. He sunk so far in his despondency, as to doubt if God would not lay him aside, and send other labourers into his harvest.” But this was another time. It was June 22; and the occasion of the doubt is expressly mentioned: “I preached, but had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt,” on that account. Not on BiSHOP OF GLOUCESTER, 147 -account of Mr. Whitefield. He did not “now begin to set up for himself.” We were in full union; nor was there the least shadow of rivalry or contention between us. I still sincerely “praise God for his wisdom in giving different talents to differ ent Preachers;” (page 250;) and particularly for his giving Mr. Whitefield the talents which I have not. 6. What farther proof of hypocrisy? Why, “he had given innumerable flirts of contempt in his Journals against human learning.” (Pages 252, 253.) Where? I do not know. Let the passages be cited; else, let me speak for it ever so much, it will prove nothing. “At last he was forced to have recourse to what he had so much scorned, I mean, prudence.” (Page 255.) All a mistake. I hope never to have recourse to false prudence; and true prudence I never scorned. “He might have met Mr. Whitefield half way; but he was too formidable a rival. With a less formidable one he pur sues this way. “I laboured, says he, ‘to convince Mr. Gr--,’” (my assistant, not rival,) “‘that he had not done well, in confuting, as he termed it, the sermon I preached the Sunday before. I asked, Will you meet me half way?” (The words following put my meaning beyond all dispute:) “I will never publicly preach against you. Will not you against me?” Here we see a fair invitation to Mr. Gr-- to play the hypocrite with him.” (Ibid.) Not in the least.

I know, Milton speaks of “virtual or immediate touch.” But most incline to think, virtual touch is no touch at all. “Were the style of the New Testament utterly rude and barbarous, and abounding with every fault that can possibly deform a language; this is so far from proving such language not divinely inspired, that it is one certain mark of this ori ginal.” (Page 55.) A vehement paradox this! But it is not proved yet, and probably never will. “The labours of those who have attempted to defend the purity of Scripture Greek have been very idly employed.” (Page 66.) Others think they have been very wisely employed,and that they have abundantly proved their point. Having now “considered the operations of the Holy Spirit, as the Guide of truth, who clears and enlightens the under standing, I proceed to consider him as the Comforter, who purifies and supports the will.” (Page 89.) “Sacred antiquity is full in its accounts of the sudden and entire change made by the Holy Spirit in the dispositions and manners of those whom it had enlightened; instantaneously effacing their evil habits, and familiarizing them to the per formance of every good action.” (Page 90.) “No natural cause could effect this. Neither fanaticism nor superstition, nor both of them, will account for so sudden and lasting a conversion.” (Ibid.) “Superstition never effects any considerable change in the manners. Its utmost force is just enough to make us exact in the ceremonious offices of religion, or to cause some acts of penitence, as death approaches.” (Page 91.) “Fanaticism, indeed, acts with greater violence, and, by influencing the will, frequently forces the manners from their bent, and sometimes effaces the strongest impressions of cus tom and nature. But this fervour, though violent, is rarely lasting; never so long as to establish the new system into an BIs HoP or GLOUCESTER. 151 habit. So that when its rage subsides, as it very soon does, (but where it drives into downright madness,) the bias on the will keeps abating, till all the former habitudes recover their relaxed tone.” (Page 92.) Never were reflections more just than these.

xiv. 21, 22.) Nay, The wounded dragon raged in vain; And, fierce the utmost plagues to brave, Madly he dared the parting main, And sunk beneath the o'erwhelming wave. Was all this an effectual proof of the truth of their pretences to the Israelites themselves? It was not; they were still ‘disobedient at the sea, even at the Red Sea.” Was the giving them day by day bread from heaven, an effectual proof to those “two hundred and fifty of the princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown, who said, with Dathan and Abiram, Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up; ” (Numb. xvi. 14;) nay, “when the ground clave asunder that was under them, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up?’ (Verse 32.) Neither was this an effectual proof to those who saw it with their eyes, and heard the cries of those who went down into the pit; but, the very next day, they ‘murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord!” (Verse 41.) Was not the case generally the same with regard to the Prophets that followed? several of whom ‘stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire,’ and did many other mighty works; yet their own people received them not; yet ‘they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword, they were destitute, afflicted, tor mented !’--utterly contrary to the commonly received sup position, “that the working real, undoubted miracles, must bring all controversy to an end, and convince every gainsayer.’ “Let us come nearer yet. How stood the case between our Lord himself and his opposers? Did he not work real and undoubted miracles? And what was the effect? Still, ‘when he came to his own, his own received him not.’ Still “he was despised and rejected of men. Still it was a challenge not to be answered, ‘Have any of the Rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” After this, how can you imagine, that whoever works miracles must convince all men of the truth of his pretences? “I would just remind you of only one instance more: ‘There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked.

“I would just remind you of only one instance more: ‘There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. The same heard Paul speak; who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiving he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.” Here was so undoubted a miracle, that the people ‘lifted up their voices, saying, The Gods are come down in the likeness of men.” But how long were even these convinced of the truth of his pretences? Only till ‘there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium;’ and then they ‘stoned him” (as they supposed) ‘to death !” (Acts xiv. 7, &c.) So certain it is, that no miracles whatever, that were ever yet wrought in the world, were effectual to prove the most glaring truth to those who hardened their hearts against it. “4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. ‘If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be’ convinced of what they desire not to believe, ‘though one rose from the dead. Without a miracle, without one rising from the dead, eav ris 6exy to 6eAmua avrov Troueuv, “if any man be willing to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God: ” But if he is not ‘willing to do his will,” he will never want an excuse, a plausible reason for re jecting it; yea, though ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it. For, let ever so much light come into the world, it will have no effect (such is the wise and just will of God) on those who ‘love darkness rather than light. It will not convince those who do not simply desire to do ‘the will of their Father which is in heaven; those ‘who mind earthly things, who, if they do not continue in any gross outward sin, yet love pleasure and ease, yet seek profit or power, preferment or reputation. Nothing will ever be an effectual proof to these of the holy and acceptable will of God, unless first their proud hearts be humbled, their stubborn wills bowed down, and their desires brought, at least in some degree, into obedience to the law of Christ.

was for many years without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, or a Sabbath-breaker? “Or, (2.) That he is not so now 7 “Or, (3.) That he continued so till he heard this man preach, and from that time was another man? “Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is, by the testimony of competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. “Or, would you have us prove by miracles, “(4.) That this was not done by our own power or holi mess? that God only is able to raise the dead, to quicken those who are dead in trespasses and sins? “Surely no. Whosoever believes the Scriptures will want no new proof of this. “Where then is the wisdom of those men who demand mira cles in proof of such a proposition? One branch of which, “that such sinners are reformed by means of these Teachers,’ being a plain fact, can only be proved by testimony, as all other facts are; and the other, ‘that this is a work of God, and a great and more than ordinary work, needs no proof, as carrying its own evidence to every thinking man. “8. To sum up this: No truly wise or sober man can possibly desire or expect miracles, to prove, either, (1.) That these doc trines are true;--this must be decided by Scripture and reason: Or, (2.) That these facts are true;--this can only be proved by testimony: Or, (3.) That to change sinners from darkness to light, is the work of God alone; only using what instruments he pleases;--this is glaringly self-evident:-Or, (4.) That such a change wrought in so many notorious sinners, within so short a time, is a great and extraordinary work of God. What then is it remains to be proved by miracles? Perhaps you will say, it is this: ‘That God has called, or sent, you to do this. Nay, this is implied in the Third of the foregoing propositions. If God has actually used us therein, if his work hath in fact prospered in our hands, then he hath called or sent us to do this.

And this gift is a gift of the Holy Ghost working within us. And as the increase of per fection, so the original of faith, is from the Spirit of God, by an internal illumination of the soul. “The second part of the office of the Holy Ghost is the renewing of man in all the parts and faculties of his soul. For our natural corruption consisting in an aversation of our wills and a depravation of our affections, an inclination of them to the will of God is wrought within us by the Spirit of God. “The third part of his office is to lead, direct, and govern us in our actions and conversations. “If we live in the Spi rit, quickened by his renovation, we must also ‘walk in the spirit, following his direction, led by his manuduction. We are also animated and acted by the Spirit of God, who giveth ‘both to will and to do.’ “And “as many as are thus led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God.” (Rom. viii. 14.) Moreover, that this direction may prove more effectual, we are guided in our prayers by the same Spirit, according to the promise, ‘I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplication.” (Zech. xii. 10.) Whereas then, “this is the confidence we have in Him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us;’ and whereas, “we know not what we should pray for as we ought, the Spi rit itself maketh intercession for us withgroaning that can not be uttered.’ (Rom. viii. 26, 27.) “And He that search eth the heart knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.” From which intercession, (made for all true Chris tians,) he hath the name of the Paraclete given him by Christ; who said, ‘I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete.” (John xiv. 16, 26.) For, “if any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,” saith St. John. “Who maketh intercession for us,’ saith St. Paul. (Rom. viii. 34.) And we have ‘another Para clete,” saith our Saviour, (John xiv. 16; Rom. viii. 27) ‘which also maketh intercession for us,” saith St. Paul.

Paul. A Paraclete then, in the notion of the Scriptures, is an Intercessor. “It is also the office of the Holy Ghost to assure us of the adoption of sons, to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God toward us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inheritance. ‘The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father; the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” As, therefore, we are born again by the Spirit, and receive from him our regeneration, so we are also by the same Spirit assured of our adoption. Because, being ‘sons, we are also heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, by the same Spirit we have the pledge, or rather the earnest, of our inheritance. ‘For he which establisheth us in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of his Spirit in our hearts; so that we are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inherit ance.’ The Spirit of God, as given to us in this life, is to be looked upon as an earnest, being part of that reward which is promised, and, upon performance of the covenant which God hath made with us, certainly to be received.” It now rests with your Lordship to take your choice, either to condemn or to acquit both ; either your Lordship must condemn Bishop Pearson for an enthusiast, or you must acquit me: For I have his express authority on my side, con cerning every text which I affirm to belong to all Christians. But I have greater authority than his, and such as I rever ence only less than the oracles of God; I mean that of our own Church.

Law’s words, in his answer to Dr. Trapp, an extract from which I have published. But be they whose they will, they by no means imply that we are to be “as righteous as Christ was,” but that we are to be (which St. Peter likewise affirms) “partakers of the Divine nature.” (2.) “A Preacher of yours declared he was as free from sin as Christ ever was.” I did not hear him declare it: Pray did you? . If not, how do you know he declared it at all? Nay, but “another declared he believed it was impossible for one whom he named to sin, for the Spirit of God dwelt in him bodily.” (Page 8.) Pray, Sir, did you hear this yourself? Else the testimony is nothing worth. Hearsay evidence will not be admitted by any Court in the kingdom. What you say of that good man Mr. Whitefield, now with God, I leave with Mr. H--'s remark: “I admire your pru dence, though not your generosity; for it is much safer to cudgel a dead man than a living one.” 15. You next descant upon “the disorders which the spirit of enthusiasm created in the last age.” Very likely it might; but, blessed be God, that is nothing at all to us. For he hath given us, not the spirit of enthusiasm, but of love and of a sound mind. In the following page you quaintly compare your hearers to sheep, and yourself and friends to the dogs in the fable; and seem much afraid, lest the silly sheep should be “persuaded to give you up to these ravening wolves.” Nay, should you not rather be ranked with the sheep than the dogs? For your teeth are not so sharp as razors. 16. “Another fundamental error of the Methodists is, the asserting that laymen may preach; yea, the most ignorant and illiterate of them, provided they have the inward call of the Spirit.” (Page 11.) The former part of this objection we had before. The latter is a total mistake. They do not allow the “most ignorant” men to preach, whatever “inward call” they pretend to. Among them none are allowed to be stated Preachers, but such as, (1.) Are truly alive to God; such as experience the “faith that worketh by love; ” such as love God and all man kind.

What therefore they were, we may safely gather from what they are; we may judge of the past by the present. Would we know, then, (to begin with a part of the world known to very early antiquity,) what manner of men the Heathens in Africa were two or three thousand years ago? Inquire what they are now, who are genuine Pagans still, not tainted either with Mahometanism or Christianity. They are to be found in abundance, either in Negroland, or round the Cape of Good Hope. Now, what measure of knowledge have the natives of these countries? I do not say in metaphysics, mathematics, or astronomy. Of these it is plain they know just as much as their four-footed brethren; the lion and the man are equally accomplished with regard to this knowledge. I will not ask what they know of the nature of government, of the respective rights of Kings and various orders of subjects: In this re gard, a herd of men are manifestly inferior to a herd of ele phants. But let us view them with respect to common life. What do they know of the things they continually stand in need of? How do they build habitations for themselves and their families; how select and prepare their food; clothe and adorn their persons? As to their habitations, it is certain, I will not say, our horses, (particularly those belonging to the Nobility and Gentry,) but an English peasant's dogs, nay, his very swine, are more commodiously lodged; and as to their food, apparel, and ornaments, they are just suitable to their edifices: Your nicer Hottentots think meet With guts and tripe to deck their feet. With downcast eyes on Totta's legs, The love-sick youth most humbly begs, She would not from his sight remove At once his breakfast and his love. Such is the knowledge of these accomplished animals, in things which cannot but daily employ their thoughts; and wherein, consequently, they cannot avoid exerting, to the uttermost, both their natural and acquired understanding. And what are their present attainments in virtue? Are they not, one and all, “without God in the world?” having either no knowledge of him at all; no conception of anything he has to do with them, or they with him; or such concep tions as are far worse than none, as make him such a one as themselves.

What their learning is now, I know not; but notwithstand ing their boast of its antiquity, it was certainly very low and contemptible in the last century, when they were so astonished at the skill of the French Jesuits, and honoured them as almost more than human, for calculating eclipses ! And whatever progress they may have made since, in the know ledge of astronomy, and other curious, rather than useful, sciences, it is certain they are still utterly ignorant of what it most of all concerns them to know: They know not God, any more than the Hottentots; they are all idolaters to a man; and so tenacious are they of their national idolatry, that even those whom the French Missionaries called con verts, yet continued one and all to worship Confucius and the souls of their ancestors. It is true, that when this was strongly represented at Rome by an honest Dominican who came from thence, a Bull was issued out and sent over into China, forbidding them to do it any longer. But the good Fathers kept it privately among themselves, saying, the Chinese were not able to bear it. Such is their religion with respect to God. But are they not eminent for all social virtues, all that have place between man and man? Yes, according to the accounts which some have given. According to these, they are the glory of mankind, and may be a pattern to all Europe. But have not we some reason to doubt if these accounts are true? Are pride and laziness good ingredients of social virtue 7 And can all Europe equal either the laziness or pride of the Chinese Nobility and Gentry, who are too stately or too indolent even to put the meat into their own mouths? Yet they are not too proud or too indolent to oppress, to rob, to defraud, all that fall into their hands. How flagrant instances of this may any one find even in the account of Lord Anson's voyage 1 exactly agreeing with the accounts given by all our countrymen who have traded in any part of China; as well as with the observation made by a late writer in his “Geographical Grammar:” “Trade and commerce, or rather, cheating and over-reaching, is the natural bent and genius of the Chinese. Gain is their god; they prefer this to everything besides.

O yes: “The causes of war,” as the same writer observes, “are innumerable. Some of the chief are these: The ambition of Princes; or the corruption of their Ministers: Difference of opinion; as, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether the juice of the grape be blood or wine; what is the best colour for a coat, whether black, white, or grey; and whether it should be long or short, whether narrow or wide. Nor are there any wars so furious as those occasioned by such difference of opinions. “Sometimes two Princes make a war to decide which of them shall dispossess a third of his dominions. Sometimes a war is commenced, because another Prince is too strong; sometimes, because he is too weak. Sometimes our neigh bours want the things which we have, or have the things which we want: So both fight, until they take ours, or we take theirs. It is a reason for invading a country, if the peo ple have been wasted by famine, destroyed by pestilence, or embroiled by faction; or to attack our nearest ally, if part of his land would make our dominions more round and compact. “Another cause of making war is this: A crew are driven by a storm they know not where; at length they make the land and go ashore; they are entertained with kindness. They give the country a new name; set up a stone or rotten plank for a memorial; murder a dozen of the natives, and bring away a couple by force. Here commences a new right of dominion : Ships are sent, and the natives driven out or de stroyed. And this is done to civilize and convert a barbarous and idolatrous people.” But, whatever be the cause, let us calmly and impartially consider the thing itself. Here are forty thousand men gathered together on this plain. What are they going to do? See, there are thirty or forty thousand more at a little dis tance. And these are going to shoot them through the head or body, to stab them, or split their skulls, and send most of their souls into everlasting fire, as fast as they possibly can. Why so? What harm have they done to them? O none at all ! They do not so much as know them.

We are under an excellent constitution, which secures both our reli gious and civil liberty. We have religion taught in its primitive purity, its genuine, native simplicity. And how it prospers among us, we may know with great ease and certainty; for we depend not on hearsay, on the report of others, or on subtle and uncertain reasonings; but may see everything with our own eyes, and hear it with our own ears. Well, then, to make all the allowance possible, we will suppose mankind in general to be on a level, with regard to knowledge and virtue, even with the inhabitants of our fortunateislands; and take our measure of them from the present undeniable state of our own countrymen. In order to take a thorough survey of these, let us begin with the lowest, and proceed upward. The bulk of the natives of Ireland are to be found in or near their little cabins. throughout the kingdom, most of which are their own work manship, consisting of four earthen walls, covered with straw, or sods, with one opening in the side wall, which serves at once for door, window, and chimney. Here, in one room, are the cow and pig, the woman with her children, and the master of the family. Now, what knowledge have these rational animals? They know to plant and boil their potatoes, to milk their cow, and put their clothes on and off. if they have any besides a blanket; but other knowledge they have none, unless in religion. And how much do they know of this? A little more than the Hottentots, and not much. They know the names of God, and Christ, and the Virgin Mary. They know a little of St. Patrick, the Pope, and the Priest; how to tell their beads, to say Ave Maria and Pater Noster; to do what penance they are bid, to hear mass, confess, and pay so much for the pardon of their sins. But as to the nature of religion, the life of God in the soul, they know no more (I will not say, than the Priest, but) than the beasts of the field.

Do not you frequently resolve against it, and do not you break those resolutions again and again? Can you help breaking them? If so, why do you not? Are not you prone to “unreasonable desires,” either of pleasure, praise, or money? Do not you catch yourself desiring things not worth a desire, and other things more than they deserve? Are all your desires proportioned to the real intrinsic value of things? Do you not know and feel the contrary? Are not you continually liable to “foolish and hurtful desires?” And do not you frequently relapse into them, knowing them to be such; knowing that they have before “pierced you through with many sorrows?” Have you not often resolved against these desires, and as often broke your resolutions? Can you help breaking them? Do so; help it, if you can; and if not, own your helplessness. Are you throughly pleased with your own life? Nihilna vides quod nolis ? “Do you observe nothing there which you dislike?” I presume you are not too severe a judge here; nevertheless, I ask, Are you quite satisfied, from day to day, with all you say or do? Do you say nothing which you after wards wish you had not said? do nothing which you wish you had not done? Do you never speak anything contrary to truth or love? Is that right? Let your own conscience deter mine. Do you never do anything contrary to justice or mercy? Is that well done? You know it is not. Why, then, do you not amend? Moves, sed nil promoves. You resolve, and resolve, and do just as you did before. Your wife, however, is wiser and better than you. Nay, perhaps you do not think so. Possibly you said once,-- “Thou hast no faults, or I no faults can spy; Thou art all beauty, or all blindness I.” But you do not say so now : She is not without faults; and you can see them plain enough. You see more faults than you desire, both in her temper and behaviour: And yet you cannot mend them; and she either cannot or will not. And she says the very same of you. Do your parents or hers live with you? And do they, too, exercise your patience? Is there nothing in their temper or behaviour that gives you pain?

Very good: Remember, then, an honest man’s word is as good as his bond. You are preparing a receipt, or writing, for a sum of money, which you are going to pay or lend to this honest man. Writ fing ! What need of that? You do not fear he should die soon. You did not once think of it. But you do not care to trust him without it; that is, you are not sure but he is a mere knave. What, your landlord, who is a Justice of Peace; it may be, a Judge; nay, a Member of Parliament; possibly 234 Ith E DOCTRINE OF a Peer of the realm ! And cannot you trust this Honourable, if not Right Honourable, man, without a paltry receipt? I do not ask whether he is a whoremonger, an adulterer, a blasphemer, a proud, a passionate, a revengeful man: This, it may be, his nearest friends will allow; but do you suspect his honesty too? 13. Such is the state of the Protestant Christians in Eng land. Such their virtue, from the least to the greatest; if you take an impartial survey of your parents, children, ser vants, labourers, neighbours; of tradesmen, Gentry, Nobility. What then can we expect from Papists? what from Jews, Mahometans, Heathens? And it may be remarked, that this is the plain, glaring, appa rent condition of human kind. It strikes the eye of the most careless, inaccurateobserver, who does not trouble himself with any more than their outside. Now, it is certain the generality of men do not wear their worst side outward. Rather, they study to appear better than they are, and to conceal what they can of their faults. What a figure, then, would they make, were we able to touch them with Ithuriel’s spear! What a pros pect would there be, could we anticipate the transactions of the great day ! could we “bring to light the hidden things of dark ness, and make manifest the thoughts and intents of the heart!” This is the plain, naked fact, without any extenuation on the one hand, or exaggeration on the other. The present state of the moral world is as conspicuous as that of the natural. Ovid said no more concerning both, near two thou sand years since, than is evidently true at this day.

(3.) If it was the state of all heathen nations, how came it to be so? How was it, that there was not one uncorrupted nation on earth? (4.) How could any heathen nation be in this state; “without strength; unable to recover themselves” from sin, without the extraordinary interposal of the divine grace? since you are clear in this, “that all the Gentiles are endowed with light and power sufficient to know God, and perform obedience to his will, by their natural powers of reason and understanding.” (Page 111.) If you say, “They were once endowed with these powers, but now they had cast them away;” I am not satisfied still. What, did all nations cast away their natural powers of reason and understanding? Surely not. But if not, how came they all to plunge themselves into this dreadful corruption? 8. Another proof is, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Rom viii. 7, 8.) On this you observe, (1.) “Here is not one word of Adam, or any consequence of his sin upon us.” The whole passage speaks of that corruption of our nature which is the consequence of Adam’s sin. The plain and obvious sense of it is this: “What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,” (too weak to contend with our corrupt nature,) God hath done: “Sending his own Son,” he hath “condemned” that “sin” which was “in our flesh;” (verse 3;) hath given sentence that it should be destroyed: “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit;” (verse 4;) who are guided in all our thoughts, words, and actions, not by corrupt nature, but by the Spirit of God. “They that are after the flesh”--who are still guided by corrupt nature--“mind the things of the flesh;” have their thoughts and affections fixed on such things as gratify cor rupt nature; “but they that are after the Spirit”--who are under his guidance--“mind the things of the Spirit;” (verse 5;) think of, relish, love the things which the Spirit hath re vealed; which he moves us to, and promises to give us.

Taylor understands nothing else but the mere parts and powers of a man; and by “being born of the flesh, the being ‘born of a woman,’ with the constitution and natural powers of a man.” (Jennings's Vindication, p. 78, &c.) Now, let us suppose that human nature is not at all corrupted; and let us try what sense we can make of other scriptures where the word flesh is used in opposition to Spirit, as it is here: “There is no condemnation to them who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit;” (Rom. viii. 1;) that is, not after the pure, uncorrupted constitution and powers of man. Again : “They that are in the flesh cannot please God,” (verse&;) that is, they that have the parts and powers of a man. Again: “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die;” that is, if ye live suitably to the constitution and powers of your nature. Once more: How shall we understand, “The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh;” (Gal. v.17;) if flesh means nothing but the pure and uncorrupted powers of human nature? “But this text (John iii. 3) is,” according to Dr. Taylor, “so far from implying any corruption of our nature, that, ‘on the contrary, it supposes we have a nature susceptible of the best habits, and capable of being born of the Spirit.’” (Page 145.) And who ever denied it? Who ever supposed that such a corruption of nature, as for the present disables us for spiritual good, renders us incapable of being “born of the Spirit?” “But if natural generation is the means of conveying a sinful nature from our first parents to their posterity, then must itself be a sinful and unlawful thing.” I deny the consequence. You may transmit to your children a nature tainted with sin, and yet commit no sin in so doing. “Again: We produce one another only as the oak pro duces the acorn. The proper production of a child is from God. But if God produces a foetus which has sinful dispo sitions, he produces those dispositions.” (Page 146.) Your argument proves too much. It would prove God to be the author of all actual as well as original sin.

Our apprehension is indis tinct, our judgment false, our reasoning wrong in a thousand instances. So it always was; and so it is still, after all the care we can possibly take: Therefore, “our faculties are not a sound and fit for right action as Adam’s were before he sinned.’ “But any man of common understanding might havedressed and kept the garden as well as he.” I can neither affirm no deny this; for we know not how he dressed and kept it. “Nor doth it appear, that in giving names to all the crea. tures, he showed any extraordinary penetration into thei natures; for that the names he gave truly expressed the several qualities of them is a mere fiction, without any foun. dation in Scripture history, or the names of animals in the original Hebrew.” (Page 171.) This is really strange that any man of learning should be so hardy as to affirm this, after the numberless instances which have been produced of Hebrew names expressing the most essential property of each animal. And is this supposition likewise “without any foundation in Scripture history?” What is that? “And the Lord God brought every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, unto Adam, to see what he would call them;” to make proof of his understanding. “And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” (Gen. ii. 19.) Now, whether those names were Hebrew or no, (which you affect to doubt,) can it be supposed that God would have permitted them to stand, if they had not suited the nature of each creature? It is bold therefore to affirm, that “many of his posterity could have given names to them as well as he ; and that therefore this is not a proof that he had any capacity superior to us.” (Page 172.) You proceed: “Surely his eating the forbidden fruit is no evidence of superior abilities.” (Page 173.) And it is no evidence of the contrary; “seeing,” as you yourself observe, “what his special temptation was, we do not know.” There fore, neither do we know whether any of his posterity could have overcome it; much less, that “many of his posterity have over.

It is bold therefore to affirm, that “many of his posterity could have given names to them as well as he ; and that therefore this is not a proof that he had any capacity superior to us.” (Page 172.) You proceed: “Surely his eating the forbidden fruit is no evidence of superior abilities.” (Page 173.) And it is no evidence of the contrary; “seeing,” as you yourself observe, “what his special temptation was, we do not know.” There fore, neither do we know whether any of his posterity could have overcome it; much less, that “many of his posterity have over. come temptations more violent than his.” All this is talking in the dark, “not knowing what we say, neither whereof weaffirm.” “And now let any man see whether there be any ground in revelation for exalting Adam's nature as Divines have done, who have affirmed that all his faculties were eminently per. fact, and entirely set to the love and obedience of his Creator.” (Page 175.) “And yet these same suppose him to have been guilty of the vilest act that ever was committed.” (Page 176.) They suppose Adam to have been created holy and wise, like his Creator; and yet capable of falling from it. They suppose farther, that through temptations, of which we cannot possibly judge, he did fall from that state; and that hereby he brought pain, labour, and sorrow on himself and all his pos terity; together with death, not only temporal, but spiritual, and (without the grace of God) eternal. And it must be com fessed, that not only a few Divines, but the whole body of Christians in all ages, did suppose this, till after seventeen hundred years a sweet-tongued orator arose, not only more enlightened than silly Adam, but than any of his wise posterity, and declared that the whole supposition was folly, nonsense, inconsistency, and blasphemy “Objection 2. But do not the Scriptures say, Adam was created after God's own image? And do his posterity bear that image now? “The Scriptures do say, ‘God created man in his own image.” (Gen. i. 27.) But whatever that phrase means here, it doubtless means the same in Gen. ix.

23, show that we come into the world with sinful propensities? (This is all that is pertinent in the objection awkwardly proposed, page 199.) But instead of keeping to this, you spend above twenty pages in proving that this chapter does not describe a regenerate person It may, or it may not; but this does not touch the question : Do not men come into the world with sinful propensities P We have, undoubtedly, an additional proof that they do, in the words of Jeremiah: “‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?’ (xvii. 9.)” (Page 224.) On this you descant: (One instance of a thousand of your artful manner of declaiming, in order to forestal the reader's judgment, and “deceive the hearts of the simple:”) “Christians, too generally neglecting the study of the Scrip ture, content themselves with a few scraps, which, though wrong understood, they make the test of truth, in contradic tion to the whole tenor of Revelation. Thus this text has been misapplied to prove that every man’s heart is so despe rately wicked, that no man can know how wicked his heart is.” O what Tru6avoMoyla, “persuasiveness of speech !” After read ing this, I was much inclined to believe, without going a step further, that this text had been “generally misunder stood.” I thought, Probably it has been misapplied, and does not assert that every man’s “heart is desperately wicked.” But no sooner did I read over the very verses you cite, than the clear light appeared again. “‘Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.” (Verse 5.)” (Page 225.) That man, whom we are not to trust in, means man in general, cannot be denied. After repeating the intermediate verses, you yourself add, “He subjoins a reason, which demonstrates the error of trust ing in man: ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?’ (Verse 9.) This text, therefore, does not mean, Who can know his own heart, but another's?” Whether it means one or both, it positively asserts, that “the heart” of man, of men in general, of every man, is “desperately wicked.” Therefore, as to the main point contained therein, “Christians do not understand it wrong; ” (page 224;) neither misapply it at all.

Taylor believes, ‘the influence of the Spirit of God, to assist our sincere endeavours, is spoken of in the gospel, but never as supposing any natural pravity of our minds. But certain it is, that Christ opposeth our being ‘born of the Spirit, to our being ‘born of the flesh : ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John iii.6.) Therefore, the influence of the Spirit in regeneration supposeth something that we are ‘born with; which makes such an influence necessary to our being ‘born again.” And if this be not some natural pravity, let our author tell us what it is. It is plain it is not any ill habit afterward acquired; for it is something that we are born with. And if to be ‘born of the flesh, means only ‘to have the parts and powers of a man;’ and if these parts and powers are all ‘pure and uncorrupted, we have no need of any such influ ence of the Spirit to be superadded to our natural powers. Without this, our own sincere endeavours will suffice for attain ing all habits of virtue.” (Jennings's Vindication, p. 125.) I proceed to your conclusion: “Is it not highly injurious to the God of our nature, whose hands have formed and fashioned us, to believe our nature is originally corrupted?” (Taylor's Doctrine, &c., p. 256.) It is; but the charge falls not on us, but you. We do not believe “our nature is ori ginally corrupted.” It is you who believe this; who believe our nature to be in the same state, moral and intellectual, as it originally was ! Highly injurious indeed is this supposition to the God of our nature. Did he originally give us such a nature as this? so like that of a wild ass’s colt; so stupid, so stubborn, so intractable; so prone to evil, averse to good? Did his hands form and fashion us thus? no wiser or better than men at present are? If I believed this,--that men were originally what they are now,-if you could once convince me of this, I could not go so far as to be a Deist; I must either be a Manichee or an Atheist. I must either believe there was an evil God, or that there was no God at all.

“3. The former of these two is spoken of as that which renders the other so necessary. Because “that which is born of the flesh is flesh; therefore ‘we must be born of the Spirit: * Therefore this great change must be wrought in us, or we cannot ‘enter into the kingdom of God.” “4. If the latter of these is made necessary by the former, then to be ‘born flesh” is to be born corrupt and sinful. And, indeed, the word ‘flesh” is very frequently taken for the corrupt principle in man. It is always so taken when it stands opposed to ‘the Spirit, or to that inwrought principle of obedience, which itself also (taking the name of its Author) is sometimes termed ‘Spirit.” “Now, in the text, whatever or whoever is born of a man, since the fall, is denominated ‘flesh.’ And that “flesh” is here put, not for sinless frailty, but sinful corruption, we learn from its being opposed to the ‘Spirit.” Christ was born frail, as well as we, and in this sense was ‘flesh; yet, being without sin, he had no need to be ‘born of the Spirit.” This is not made necessary by any sinless infirmities, but by a sinful nature only. This alone is opposite to ‘the Spirit; thus, there fore, we must understand it here. “But Dr. Taylor says, “To be born of the flesh is only to be naturally born of a woman. I answer, Is not ‘flesh” op posed to ‘Spirit’ in this verse? Is it not the Spirit of God, which is spoken of in the latter clause, together with the principle of grace, which is in every regenerate person? And is anything beside sinful corruption opposite to the Spirit of God? No, certainly . But if so, and if wherever ‘flesh” is opposed to ‘the Spirit, it implies sinful corruption, then it is evident, to be ‘born of the flesh, is to be the sinful offspring of sinful parents, so as to have need of the renewing influ ences of the Holy Spirit, on that account, even from our birth.

‘They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Not that they actually speak lies as soon as they are born; but they natu rally incline that way, and discover that inclination as early as is possible.” (Pages 51, 52.) “‘Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.’ (Prov. xxii. 15.) ‘The rod and reproof give wisdom: But a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.’ (xxix. 15.) These passages put together are a plain testimony of the inbred corruption of young children. “Foolishness, in the former, is not barely “appetite, or a want of the knowledge attainable by instruction.” Neither of these deserve that sharp correction. But it is an indisposedness to what is good, and a strong propensity to evil. This ‘foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; it is rooted in his inmost nature. It is, as it were, ‘fastened to him by strong cords; so the original word signifies. From this corrup tion of heart in every child it is, that the ‘rod of correction’ is necessary to give him ‘wisdom: Hence it is, that “a child left to himself,’ without correction, ‘brings his mother to shame. If a child were born equally inclined to virtue and vice, why should the wise man speak of foolishness, or wicked ness, as fastened so closely to his heart? And why should ‘the rod and reproof’ be so necessary for him? These texts, there fore, are another clear proof of the corruption of human nature. “‘Those things which proceed out of the mouth, come from the heart, and they defile the man. For from within, out of the heart, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, murders:--All these things come from within, and defile the man.’ (Matt.xv. 18, 19; Mark vii. 20-23.) Our Lord here teaches, that all evil thoughts, words, and actions, of every kind, flow out of the heart, the soul of man, as being now averse to all good, and inclined to all evil.” (Pages 55, 56.) “Rom. v. 12-19. Let the reader please to read the whole passage very carefully.

A denial of original sin contradicts the main design of the gospel, which is to humble vain man, and to ascribe to God’s free grace, not man’s free will, the whole of his salvation. Nor, indeed, can we let this doctrine go with out giving up, at the same time, the greatest part, if not all, of the essential articles of the Christian faith. If we give up this, we cannot defend either justification by the merits of Christ, or the renewal of our natures by his Spirit. Dr. Taylor’s book is not, therefore, subversive of a particular branch, but of the whole scheme, of Christianity. “WI. The doctrine, therefore, of original sin is not only a truth agreeable to Scripture and reason, but a truth of the utmost importance. And it is a truth to which the Churches of Christ, from the beginning, have borne a clear testimony. “Few truths, if any, are more necessary to be known, be lieved, and thoroughly considered. For if we are not ac quainted with this, we do not know ourselves; and if we do not know ourselves, we cannot rightly know Christ and the grace of God. And on this knowledge of Christ and the grace of God depends the whole of our salvation. St. Augustine, therefore, well remarks, ‘Christianity lies properly in the knowledge of what concerns, Adam and Christ. For, certainly, if we do not know Christ, we know nothing to any purpose; and we cannot know Christ, without some knowledge of what relates to Adam, who was ‘the figure of Him that was to come.’ “‘But if this doctrine is so important, why is so little said of it in Scripture, and in the writings of the ancients?” “This is a grand mistake. We totally deny that the Scrip ture says little of it. Dr. Taylor, indeed, affirms, ‘There are but five passages of Scripture that plainly relate to the effects of Adam’s fall.” Not so: Many Scriptures, as has been shown, plainly and directly teach us this doctrine; and many others deliver that from which it may be rationally and easily de duced. Indeed, the whole doctrine of salvation by Christ, and divine grace, implies this; and each of its main branches --justification and regeneration--directly leads to it.

They kindly entertain his enemies, and will never absolutely resign themselves to his government. Thus you see the natural man is an enemy to Jesus Christ in all his offices. “3. Ye are enemies to the Spirit of God: He is the Spirit of holiness. The natural man is unholy, and loves to be so; and therefore “resists the Holy Ghost. The work of the Spirit is to ‘convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.’ But O, how do men strive to ward off these convictions, as they would a blow that threatened their life! If the Spirit dart them in, so that they cannot avoid them, does not the heart say, ‘Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?’ And indeed they treat him as an enemy, doing their utmost to stifle their convictions, and to murder these harbingers that come to prepare the way of the Lord into the soul. Some fill their hands with business, to put convictions out of their head, as Cain, who fell to building a city. Some put them off with fair promises, as Felix did; some sport or sleep them away. And how can it be other wise? For it is the work of the Holy Spirit to subdue lusts, and burn up corruption. How then can he whose lusts are dear as his life fail of being an enemy to Him? “Lastly. Ye are enemies to the law of God. Though the matural man ‘desires to be under the law,’ as a covenant of works; yet as it is a rule of life, he ‘is not subject to it, neither indeed can be.’ For, (1.) Every natural man is wedded to some sin, which he cannot part with. And as he cannot bring up his inclinations to the law, he would fain bring down the law to his inclinations. And this is a plain, standing evidence of the enmity of his heart against it. (2.) The law, set home on the awakened conscience in its spirituality, irritates corruption. It is as oil to the fire, which, instead of quenching, makes it flame the more. “When the commandment comes, sin revives.” What reason can be assigned for this, but the natural enmity of the heart against the holy law P.

But until ye know every one ‘the plague of his own heart, there is no hope of your recovery. Why will ye not believe the plain testimony of Scripture? Alas! that is the nature of your disease. ‘Thou knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. Lord, open their eyes, before they lift them up in hell, and see what they will not see now ! “Meantime, let us have a special eye upon the corruption and sin of our nature. What avails it to take notice of other sins, while this mother sin is unnoticed? This is a weighty point; in speaking to which, I shall, “1. Point at some evidences of men's overlooking the sin of their nature. As (1.) Men's being so confident of themselves, as if they were in no danger of gross sins. Many would take heinously such a caution as Christ gave his Apostles: ‘Take heed of surfeiting and drunkenness.’ They would be ready to cry out, ‘Am I a dog?’ It would raise the pride of their heart, not their fear and trembling. And all this is a proof that they know not the corruption of their own nature. (2.) Untender ness toward them that fall. Many, in this case, cast off all bowels of compassion; a plain proof that they do not know, or ‘consider themselves, lest they also be tempted.” Grace, indeed, does make men zealous against sin, in others as well as in them selves. But eyes turned inward to the corruption of nature, clothe them with pity and compassion, and fill them with thank fulness, that they were not the persons left to be such spectacles of human frailty. (3.) Men’s venturing so boldly on temptation, in confidence of their coming off fairly. Were they sensible of the corruption of their nature, they would beware of entering on the devil’s ground; as one girt about with bags of gunpowder would be loath to walk where sparks of fire were flying. “2. I shall mention a few things in which ye should have a special eye to the sin of your nature. (1) In your application to Christ. When you are with the Physician, O forget not this disease!

Has not fire more mobility than this? Did there need omnipotence, to convert fire into fire, into the sun, or moisture into water? “Darkness was absolutely unknown to the angels till they fell. Hence it appears, that darkness is the ground of the mate riality of nature.” (Page 33.) Appears--to whom? Nothing appears to me, but the proving ignotum per ignotius.f * See the Spectator. + The proving of an unknown proposition by one still less known.-EDIT. “All life is a desire.” (Spirit of Love, Part II., p. 198.) “Every desire, as such, is and must be made up of contra riety. God’s bringing a sensible creature into existence is the bringing the power of desire into a creaturely state.” (Ibid.) Does not all this require a little more proof, and not a little illustration? “Hard and soft, thick and thin, could have no existence, till nature lost its first purity. And this is the one true origin of all the materiality of this world. Else, nothing thick or hard could ever have been.” (Part I., p. 21.) Does not this call for much proof? since most people believe God created matter, merely because so it seemed good in his sight. But you add a kind of proof. “How comes a flint to be so hard and dark? It is because the meekness and fluidity of the light, air, and water are not in it.” (Ibid.) The meekness of light, and air, and water / What is that? Is air or water capable of virtue? “The first property of nature is a constraining, attracting, and coagulating power.” (Page 24.) I wait the proof of this. “God brought gross matter out of the sinful properties of mature, that thereby the fallen angels might lose all their power over them.” (Page 27.) And have they lost all power over them? Is Satan no longer prince of the power of the air? “As all matter is owing to the first property of nature, which is an astringing, compressing desire.” (Page 28.) Stop here, Sir. I totally deny, that any unintelligent being is capable of any desire at all. And yet this gross, capital mistake, runs through your whole theory. “The fourth property is fire.” (Page 49.) Where is the proof? “Which changes the properties of nature into an heavenly state.” (Page 48.) Proof again?

“Which changes the properties of nature into an heavenly state.” (Page 48.) Proof again? “The con junction of God and nature brings forth fire.” This needs the most proof of all. “Every right-kindled fire must give forth light.” Why? “Because the eternal fire is the effect of supernatural light.” Nay, then light should rather give forth fire. “The fire of the soul and that of the body has but one nature.” (Page 52.) Can either Behmen or Spinosa prove this ? 3. Of Adam in paradise. “Paradise is an heavenly birth of life.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part I., p. 6.) How does this definition explain the thing defined 9 “Adam had at first both an heavenly and an earthly body. Into the latter, was the spirit of this world breathed; and in this spirit and body did the heavenly spirit and body of Adam dwell.” (Page 7.) So he had originally two bodies and two souls | This will need abundance of proof. “The spirit and body of this world was the medium through which he was to have commerce with this world.” The proof? “But it was no more alive in him, than Satan and the serpent were alive in him at his first creation. Good and evil were then only in his outward body and in the outward world.” What! was there evil in the world, and even in Adam, together with Satan and the serpent, at his first creation? “But they were kept unactive by the power of the heavenly man within him.” Did this case cover the earthly man, or the earthly case the heavenly 9 But “he had power to choose, whether he would use his out ward body only as a means of opening the outward world to. him;” (so it was not quite unactive neither;) “or of opening the bestial life in himself. Till this was opened in him, nothing in this outward world, no more than his own outward body,” (so now it is unactive again,) “could act upon him, make any impressions upon him, or raise any sensations in him; neither had he any feeling of good or evil from it.” (Page 9.) All this being entirely new, we must beg clear and full proof of it.

Till this was opened in him, nothing in this outward world, no more than his own outward body,” (so now it is unactive again,) “could act upon him, make any impressions upon him, or raise any sensations in him; neither had he any feeling of good or evil from it.” (Page 9.) All this being entirely new, we must beg clear and full proof of it. “God said to man at his creation, Rule thou over this imper fect, perishing world, without partaking of its impure nature.” (Page 21.) Was not the world then at first perfect in its kind? Was it impure then? Or would it have perished if man had not sinned? And are we sure that God spake thus? “The end God proposed in the creation was the restoring all things to their glorious state.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II., p. 61.) “In the creation 1” Was not this rather the end which he proposed in the redemption? “Adam was created to keep what is called the curse, covered and overcome by Paradise. And as Paradise concealed and overcame all the evil in the elements, so Adam's heavenly man concealed from him all the evil of the earthly nature that was under it.” (Page 62.) Can we believe that there was any evil in man from the creation, if we believe the Bible? “Our own good spirit is the very Spirit of God; and yet not God, but the Spirit of God kindled into a creaturely form.” Is there any meaning in these words? And how are they con sistent with those that follow * “This spirit is so related to God, as my breath is to the air.” (Page 195.) Nay, if so, your spirit is God. For your breath is air. “That Adam had at first the nature of an angel, is plain from hence, that he was both male and female in one person. Now, this (the being both male and female) is the very perfec tion of the angelic nature.” (Page 65.) Naturalists say that snails have this perfection. But who can prove that angels have? You attempt to prove it thus: “‘In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.’ Here we are told, (1.) That the being male and female in one person is the very nature of angels.

Who will stay the hand of the Almighty, or say unto him, What doest thou? “No fruits or vegetables could have sprung up in the divided elements, but because they are parts of that glassy sea, where angelical fruits grew before.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part I., p. 19.) But how came those fruits to grow before? How came they to grow in the glassy sea? Were they not produced out of nothing at first 7 If not, God was not before nature. If they were, cannot he still produce out of nothing whatso ever pleaseth him? “All outward nature being fallen from heaven,” (that we deny,) “must, as well as it can, do and work as it did in heaven.” (Page 20.) “As well as it can l’” What can it do without God, who upholdeth all things by the word of his power? And what can it not do, if he pleaseth? Or, rather, what cannot he do, with or without it? “Matter could not possibly be, but from sin.” (Spirit of Love, Part I., p. 23.) That is, in very plain terms, God could not have created matter if Satan had not sinned ! “God could not create man with a soul and a body, unless there was such a thing as nature antecedent to the creation of man.” (Page 30.) Why could not God do this? Because “body and spirit are not two separate things, but are only the inward and outward condition of one and the same being. Every creature must have its own body, and cannot be without it. For its body is that” (Who would have thought it!) “which makes it manifest to itself. It cannot know either that it is, or what it is, but by its own body 1” (Page 32.) What a heap of bold assertions is here to curb omnipotence And not one of them has a tittle of proof, unless one can prove the other | But we have more still: “The body of any creature has nothing of its own, but is solely the outward manifestation of that which is inwardly in the soul. Every animal has nothing in its outward form or shape but that which is the form and growth of its spirit.

Every animal has nothing in its outward form or shape but that which is the form and growth of its spirit. As no number can be anything else but that which the units contained in it make it to be, so no body can be anything else but the coagulation or sum total of those properties of nature that are coagulated in it.” (Page 33.) Astonishing! What a discovery is this, that a body is only a curdled spirit ! that our bodies are only the sum total of our spiritual properties! and that the form of every man’s body is only the form of his spirit made visible ! “Every spirit manifests its own nature by that body which proceeds from it as its own birth.” (Part II., p. 17.) Does the body then grow out of the spirit, as the hair and nails grow out of the body; and this in consequence of the “powers of nature,” distinct from the power and will of God? To abridge God of his power, after creation, as well as before it, you affirm, farther, “This is an axiom that cannot be shaken, Nothing can rise higher than its first created nature; and therefore an angel at last must have been an angel at first. Do you think it possible for an ox to be changed into a rational philosopher? Yet this is as possible as for one who has only by creation the life of this world to be changed into an angel of heaven. The life of this world can reach no farther than this world; no omnipotence of God can carry it farther: Therefore, if man is to be an angel at last, he must have been created an angel; because no creature can possibly have any other life, or higher degree of life, than that which his creation brought forth in him.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II., p. 81.) I have quoted this passage at some length, that the sense of it may appear beyond dispute. But what divinity ! and what reasoning to support it! Can God raise nothing higher than its first created state? Is it not possible for him to change an ox or a stone into a rational philosopher, or a child of Abraham ? to change a man or a worm into an angel of heaven? Poor omnipotence which cannot do this!

That we “must be baptized with the Holy Ghost,” implies this and no more, that we cannot be “renewed in righteousness and true holiness” any otherwise than by being over-shadowed, quickened, and animated by that blessed Spirit. “Our fall is nothing else but the falling of our soul from its heavenly body and spirit, into a bestial body and spirit. Our redemption” (you mean, our new birth) “is nothing else but the regaining our first angelic spirit and body.” (Ibid.) What an account is here of the Christian redemption How would Dr. Tindal have smiled at this ! Where you say, “Re demption is nothing else but the life of God in the soul,” you allow an essential part of it. But here you allow it to be no thing else but that which is no part of it at all; nothing else but a whim, a madman’s dream, a chimera, a mere non-entity! “This,” (angelic spirit and body,) “in Scripture, is called our ‘new’ or ‘inward man.’” (Ibid.) The “inward man” in Scripture means one thing, the “new man” another. The former means, the mind, opposed to the body: “Though our outward man,” our body, “perish, yet the inward man,” the mind or soul, “is renewed day by day.” (2 Cor. iv. 16.) The latter means, universal holiness: “Put off the old man, which is corrupt; and put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Eph. iv. 22, 24.) But neither does the one nor the other ever mean “this angelic spirit and body.” You yourself know better what the new birth is. You describe it better, though still with amazing queerness of language, where you say, - “Man hath the light and water of an outward nature to quench the wrath of his own life, and the light and meekness of Christ, as a seed born in him, to bring forth anew the image of God.” But it is not strange, that you speak so confusedly and darkly, as you generally do, of the new birth, seeing you seem to have no conception of that faith whereby we are born again. This abundantly appears from your frank declaration, “We are neither saved by faith, nor by works.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II., p. 36.) Flatly contrary to the declaration of St.

And I fear they who stop the workings of their reason, lie the more open to the workings of their imagination. There is abundantly greater danger of this when we fancy we have no longer need to “be taught of man.” To this your late writings directly lead. One who admires them will be very apt to cry out, “I have found all that I need know of God, of Christ, of myself, of heaven, of hell, of sin, of grace, and of salvation.” (Part II., p. 4.) And the rather, because you yourself affirm roundly, “When once we appre hend the all of God, and our own nothingness,” (which a man may persuade himself he does, in less than four-and twenty hours,) “it brings a kind of infallibility into the soul in which it dwells; all that is vain, and false, and deceitful, is forced to vanish and fly before it.” (Part I., p. 95.) Agree ably to which, you tell your convert, “You have no questions to ask of any body.” (Spirit of Love, Part II., p.218.) And if, notwithstanding this, he will ask, “But how am I to keep up the flame of love?” you answer, “I wonder you should want to know this. Does a blind, or sick, or lame man want to know how he should desire sight, health, or limbs?” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II., p. 165.) No; but he wants to know how he should attain, and how he should keep, them. And he who has attained the love of God, may still want to know how he shall keep it. And he may still inquire, “May I not take my own passions, or the suggestions of evil spirits, for the workings of the Spirit of God?” (Page 198.) To this you answer, “Every man knows when he is governed by the spirit of wrath, envy, or covetousness, as easily and as cer tainly as he knows when he is hungry.” (Ibid.) Indeed he does not; neither as easily nor as certainly. Without great care, he may take wrath to be pious zeal, envy to be virtuous emulation, and covetousness to be Christian prudence or laudable frugality. “Now, the knowledge of the Spirit of God in yourself is as perceptible as covetousness.” Perhaps so; for this is as difficultly perceptible as any temper of the human soul.

Extremely dangerous therefore is this other gospel, which leads quite wide of the gospel of Christ. And what must the consequence be, if we thus “break,” yea, “and teach men so,” not “one” only, neither “the least,” of “his commandments?” Even that we “shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” God grant this may not fall on you or me ! 7. However, whether we have a place in heaven or not, you are very sure we shall have none in hell. For there is no hell in rerum naturá, “no such place in the universe.” You declare this over and over again, in great variety of expres sions. It may suffice to mention two or three: “Hell is no penalty prepared or inflicted by God.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II, p. 33.) “Damnation is only that which springs up within you.” (Spirit of Love, Part II., p. 47.) “Hell and damnation are nothing but the various operations of self.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part I., p. 79.) I rather incline to the account published a few years ago, by a wise and pious man, (the late Bishop of Cork) where he is speaking of theimprovement of human knowledge by revelation. Some of his words are: “Concerning future punishments, we learn from revelation only, (1.) That they are both for soul and body, which are distinguished in Scripture by “the worm that dieth not,’ and ‘the fire which never shall be quenched:” And accordingly we are bid to “fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. Upon which I shall only remark, that whereas we find by experience, the body and soul in this life are not capable of suffering the extremity of pain and anguish at the same time, insomuch that the greatest anguish of mind is lost and diverted by acute and pungent pain of body; yet we learn from Scripture, that in hell the wicked will be subject to extreme torments of both together.” (Procedure, &c., of Human Understanding, p. 350.) “(2.) That the chief cause of their eternal misery will be an eternal exclusion from the beatific vision of God. This exclusion seems to be the only punishment to which we can now conceive a pure spirit liable.