LETTERS. TO THE REV. MR. HERVEY. London, Nov. 29, 1758. DEAR SIR, A WEEK or two ago, in my return from Norwich, I met with Mr. Pierce, of Bury, who informed me of a conversation which he had had a few days before. Mr. Cudworth, he said, then told him, "that he had prevailed on Mr. Hervey to write against me, who likewise in what he had written referred to the book which he (Mr. Cudworth) had lately published." : Every one is welcome to write what he pleases concerning me. But would it not be well for you to remember, that before I published any thing concerning you, I sent it to you in a private letter. That I waited for an answer for several months; but was not favoured with one line that when at length I published part of what I had sent you, I did it in the most inoffensive manner possible; in the latter end of a larger work, purely designed to preserve those in connexion with me from being tossed to and fro by various doctrines. What therefore I may fairly expect from my friend, is, to mete me with the same measure. To send to me first in a private manner, any complaint he has against me; to wait as many months as I did; and if I give you none, or no satisfactory answer, then to lay the matter before the world, if you judge it will be to the glory of God. But whatever you do in this respect, one thing I request of you. Give no countenance to that insolent, scurrilous, virulent libel, which bears the name of William Cudworth. Indeed, how you can converse with a man of his spirit, I cannot comprehend. O leave not your old, well-tried friends! The new is not comparable to them. I speak not this because I am afraid of what any one can say or do But I am really concerned for you: an evil man has gained the ascendant over you, and has persuaded a dying man, who had shunned it all his life, to enter into controversy as he is stepping into eternity! Put off your armour, my brother! You and I have no moments to spare; let us employ them all in promoting peace and good-will among men. And may the peace of God keep your heart and mind in Christ Jesus! So prays, to me. Your affectionate brother and servant, TO THE REV. MR. WALKER. DIFFICULTIES WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH REV. AND DEAR SIR, Bristol, September 24, 1755. 1. YOU greatly oblige me by speaking your thoughts so freely, and the more by giving me hopes of seeing your further sentiments on so nice and important an affair. I did not delay one day to follow your advice with regard to Mr. Adams, but sent him, by the very next post, a copy of those papers; although I am satisfied already as to the publishing them, and have laid aside that design: the reasons you urge against the expediency of it, being abundantly sufficient. But you seem a little to misapprehend what we speak of, hearing predestinarian preachers. We find by long experience, that this is "deadly poison," not in itself, but to the members of our Societies. This we know to be an unquestionable truth: and it was a truth necessary to be observed, nay, and strongly insisted on (though without any design of bearing hard on any particular person) when many were enlarging on "the poisonous doctrines" which they heard at many of their parish churches. 2. All that you say concerning the inexpediency of a separation from the Church, I readily allow as likewise, that the first and main question must be, Is it lawful to separate? Accordingly, this was debated first, and that at large, in seven or eight long conversations. And it was then only, when we could not agree concerning this, that we proceeded to weigh the expediency of it. 3. As to the grounds on which those who plead for a separation from the Church proceed, some of them have weighed the point long and deeply. They have very particularly, and with earnest and continued prayer, considered the lawfulness of it. And they allow, "If it be lawful to abide therein, then it is not lawful to separate." But they aver, "It is not lawful to abide therein :" and that for the following reasons: First, With regard to the Liturgy itself: though they allow it is, in the general, one of the most excellent human compositions that ever was, yet they think it is both absurd and sinful to declare such an assent and consent as is required, to a 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 merely in a Christian, but even) 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 clear, " Whether it be lawful to attend the ministrations of those whom God has not sent to minister?" Fourthly, the doctrines actually taught by these, and indeed by a great majority of the Church-ministers, they think "are not only wrong, but fundamentally so, and subversive of the whole Gospel." They therefore doubt, "Whether it be lawful to bid them God speed, or to have any fellowship with them." I will freely acknowledge, that I cannot answer these arguments to my own satisfaction. So that my conclusion, which I cannot yet give up, That it is lawful to continue in the Church,' stands, I know not how, almost without any premises that are able to bear its weight. My difficulty is very much increased by one of your observations, I know the original doctrines of the Church are sound: I know her worship is (in the main) pure and scriptural. But if "the essence of the Church of England, considered as such, consists in her Orders and Laws," (many of which I myself can say nothing for,) "and not in her Worship and Doctrines," those who separate from her, have a far stronger plea than I was ever sensible of. 4. At present I apprehend those, and those only, to separate from the Church, who either renounce her fundamental doctrines, or refuse to join in her public worship. As yet we have done neither : nor have we taken one step further than we were convinced was our bounden duty. It is from a full conviction of this, that we have, 1. Preached abroad; 2. Prayed extempore; 3. Formed Societies; and, 4. Permitted Preachers who were not episcopally ordained. And were we pushed on this side; were there no alternative allowed, we should judge it our bounden duty, rather wholly to separate from the Church, than to give up any one of these points. Therefore, if we cannot stop a separation without stopping lay-preachers, the case is clear we cannot stop it at all. 5. "But if we permit them, should we not do more? Should we not appoint them rather? Since the bare permission puts the matter quite out of our hands, and deprives us of all our influence ?" In a great measure, it does: therefore to appoint them is far more expedient, if it be lawful. But is it lawful for Presbyters, circumstanced as we are, to appoint other ministers? This is the very point wherein we desire advice, being afraid of leaning to our own understanding. It is undoubtedly needful (as you observe) to come to some "resolution in this point;" and the sooner the better. I therefore rejoice to hear, that you think "this matter may be better, and more inoffensively ordered; and, that a method may be found, which, conducted with prudence and patience, will reduce the constitution of Methodism to due order, and render the Methodists, under God, more instrumental to the ends of practical religion." I must therefore beg your This, Sir, is the very thing I want. sentiments on this head; and that as particularly as your other engagements will allow. Wishing you more and more of the wisdom from above, I remain, Rev. Dear Sir, Your obliged and affectionate Brother and Servant, JOHN WESLEY. TO THE SAME. Kingswood, Sept. 3, 1756. REV. AND DEAR SIR, I HAVE one point in view, To promote, so far as I am able. vital, practical religion; and, by the grace of God, to beget, preserve, and increase, the life of God in the souls of men. On this single principle I have hitherto proceeded, and taken no step but in subserviency to it. With this view, when I found it to be absolutely necessary for the continuance of the work which God had begun in many souls (which their regular pastors generally used all possible means to destroy,) I permitted several of their brethren, whom I believed God had called thereto, and qualified for the work, to comfort, exhort, and instruct those who were athirst for God, or who walked in the light of his countenance. But as the persons so qualified were few, and those who wanted their assistance very many, it followed that most of these were obliged to travel continually from place to place; and this occasioned several regulations from time to time, which were chiefly made in our Conferences. So great a blessing has, from the beginning, attended the labours of these itinerants, that we have been more and more convinced every year, of the more than lawfulness of this proceeding. And the inconveniences, most of which we saw from the very first, have been both fewer and smaller than were expected. Rarely two in one year, out of the whole number of preachers, have either separated themselves, or been rejected by us. A great majority have all along behaved as becometh the gospel of Christ, and I am clearly persuaded, still desire nothing more than to spend and be spent for their brethren. 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: 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 right. 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, 2. "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, 3. "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. was there any at the Conference otherwise minded. Those who would have aimed at dispute had left us before. 4. 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. Nor 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 delay. But is that which you propose a better way? This should be coolly and calmly considered. If I mistake not, there are now in the county of Cornwall, about four and thirty of these little Societies, part of whom now experience the love of God; part are more or less earnestly seeking it. Four preachers, Peter Jaco, Thomas Johnson, W. Crabb, and Wm. |