Alwood, design for the ensuing year, partly to call other sinners to repentance, but chiefly to feed and guide those few feeble sheep: to forward them, according to the ability which God giveth, in vital, practical religion.

Now suppose we can effect, That Peter Jaco, and Thomas Johnson, be ordained and settled in the Curacies of Buryan and St. Just and suppose William Crabb, and William Alwood, fix at Launceston and the Dock, as readers and exhorters: will this answer the end which I have in view, so well as travelling through the county?

It will not answer it so well, even with regard to those societies with which Peter Jaco and Thomas Johnson have settled. Be their talents ever so great, they will, ere long, grow dead themselves, and so will most of those that hear them. I know, were I myself to preach one whole year in one place, I should preach both myself and most of my congregation asleep. Nor can I ever believe, it was ever the will of our Lord, That any congregation should have one teacher only. We have found by long and constant experience, that a frequent change of teachers is best. This preacher has one talent, that another. No one whom I ever yet knew, has all the talents which are needful for beginning, continuing, and perfecting the work of grace in a whole congregation.

But suppose this would better answer the end with regard to those two societies, would it answer in those where W. Alwood and W. Crabb, were settled as inspectors or readers? First, who shall feed them with the milk of the word? The ministers of their parishes? Alas, they cannot: they themselves neither know, nor live, nor teach the gospel. These readers? Can then either they, or I, or you, always find something to read to our congregation, which will be as exactly adapted to their wants, and as much blessed to them as our preaching? And here is another difficulty still: what authority have I to forbid their doing what I believe God has called them to do? I apprehend, indeed, that there ought, if possible, to be both an outward and inward call to this work: yet, if one of the two be supposed wanting, I had rather want the outward than the inward call. I rejoice that I am called to preach the gospel both by God and man. Yet I acknowledge, I had rather have the divine without the human, than the human without the divine call.

But waiving this, and supposing these four societies to be better provided for than they were before: what becomes of the other thirty? Will they prosper as well when they are left as sheep without a shepherd? The experiment has been tried again and again; and always with the same event: even the strong in faith grew weak and faint: many of the weak made shipwreck of the faith. The awakened fell asleep, sinners changed for a while, returned as a dog to the vomit. And so, by our lack of service, many of the souls perished for whom Christ died. Now had we willingly withdrawn our service from them, by voluntarily settling in one place, what account of this could we have given to the great Shepherd of all our souls.

I cannot, therefore, see how any of those four preachers, or any others in like circumstances, can ever, while they have health and strength, ordained or unordained, fix in one place, without a grievous wound to their own conscience, and damage to the general work of God. Yet I trust I am open to conviction; and your farther thoughts on this or any subject, will be always acceptable to,

Rev. and dear Sir,

Your very affectionate Brother
and Fellow-Labourer,

J. W,

TO THE REV. MR. WALKER,

ON HIS ADVISING TO GIVE UP THE METHODIST SOCIETIES TO THEIR SEVERAL SOCIETIES.

REV. AND DEAR SIR,

Helston, Sept. 16, 1757.

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 persuaded, 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 all 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 there 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 be an Assurance, why did you encourage J. H. to believe his state good?"

Assurance is a word I do not use, because it is not scriptural. But I hold, that 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. J. H. 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 times past.

2. "If you believed Mr. V. to be a gracious person, and a gospel minister, why did you not in justice to your people, leave them to him?"

J. H. assured me, That Mr. V. also had a clear 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 thoughts. 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. V. in particular has. He may, or he may not. 3. I do not know, whether he would or could 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 were also assured of this, they could not, in conscience, give up themselves to him. And I have neither right nor power to dispose of them contrary to their conscience.

"But they are his already by legal establishment." If they receive the Sacrament from him thrice a year, and attend his ministrations on the Lord's Day, I see no more which the law requires. But, to go a little deeper into this matter of legal establishment. Does Mr. Canon or you think, that the King and Parliament have a right to prescribe to me, what pastor I shall use? If they prescribe one which I know God never sent, am I obliged to receive him? If he be sent of God, can I receive him with a clear conscience till I know he is? And even when I do, if I believe my former pastor is more profitable to my soul, can I leave him without sin? Or has any man living a right to require this of me?

I "extend this to every gospel minister in England." Before I could with a clear conscience, leave the Methodist Society even to such an one, all these considerations must come in.

And with regard to the people: far from thinking, that "the withdrawing our preachers" from such a society without their consent, would prevent a separation from the Church, I think it would be the direct way to cause it. While we are with them, our advice has weight, and keeps them to the Church. But were we totally to withdraw, it would be of little or no weight. Nay, perhaps resentment of our unkindness (as it would appear to them) would prompt them to act in flat opposition to it. "And will it not be the same at your death?" I believe not: for I believe there will be no resentment in this case. And the last advice of a dying friend, is not likely to be so soon forgotten.

3. But "was there no inconsistency in your visiting Mr. V. as a minister of the Gospel, when you do not give up your people to him?" My visiting him as a gospel minister, did not imply any obligation so to do.

4. "If that was not the design of the visit, you should not have visited him at all " Does that follow, I visited him as a brother and a fellow-labourer, because he desired it.

5. "Does not this conduct on the whole, savour of a party spirit? And show a desire to please the Methodists, as Methodists ?"

I am not conscious of any such spirit, or of any desire but that of pleasing all men, for their good, to edification. And I have as great a desire thus to please you, as any Methodist under heaven.

You add one thing more, which is of deep importance, and deserves a particular consideration. "You spake to Mr. Vowler of your being as one man. Nothing is so desirable. But really before it can be effected, something must be done on your part, more than paying us visits, which, as far as I can see, can serve no other purpose in the present circumstances, than to bring us under needless difficulties."

And not

I did indeed speak to Mr V. of our being as one man. to him only, but to several others; for it lay much upon my heart. Accordingly I proposed that question to all who met at our late conference, "What can be done, in order to a close union with the clergy, who preach the truth?" We all agreed, that nothing could be more desirable. I, in particular, have long desired it; not from any view to my own ease, or honour, or temporal convenience in any kind: but because I was deeply convinced, it might be a blessing to my own soul, and a means of increasing the general work of God.

But you say, "Really before it can be effected, something must be done on your part." Tell me what, and I will do it without delay; however contrary it may be to my ease, or natural inclination: provided only, that it consists with my keeping a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man. It would not consist with this to give up the flock under my care, to any other minister, till I and they were convinced, they would have the same advantages for holiness under him which they now enjoy. But "paying us visits, can serve no other purpose, than to bring us under needless difficulties." I will speak very freely on this head. Can our conversing together serve no other purpose? You seem then not to have the least concern of your own wanting any such thing! But whether you do or not, I feel I do: I am not in memet totus teres atque totundus. I want more light, more strength, for my personal walking with God. And I know not, but He may give it me through you. And whether you do or not, I want more light and strength, for guiding the flock committed to my charge. May not the Lord send this also by whom he will send? And by you as probably as by any other. It is not improbable that he may by you give me clearer light, either as to doctrine or discipline. And even hereby, how much comfort and profit might redound to thousands of those for whom Christ hath died? Which, I apprehend, would abundantly compensate any difficulties that might arise from such conversation.

But what difficulties are those? All that are the necessary consequence of sharing our reproach. And what reproach is it which we bear? Is it the reproach of Christ, or not? It arose first, while my brother and I were at Oxford, from our endeavouring to be real

Christians. It was increased abundantly when we began to preach repentance and remission of sins: and insisting, that we are justified by faith. For this cause were we excluded from preaching in the churches: (I say, for this: as yet there was no field-preaching.) And this exclusion occasioned our preaching elsewhere, with the other irregularities that followed. Therefore all the reproach consequent thereon, is no other than the reproach of Christ.

And what are we worse for this? It is not displeasing to flesh and blood: but is it any hinderance to the work of God? Did he work more by us when we were honourable men? By no means. God never used us to any purpose, till we were a proverb of reproach. Nor have we now a jot more of dishonour, of evil report, than we know is necessary both for us and for the people, to balance that honour and good report, which otherwise could not be borne.

You need not, therefore, to be so much afraid of, or so careful to avoid this. It is a precious balm: it will not break your head, neither lessen your usefulness. And indeed, you cannot avoid it, any otherwise than by departing from the work. You do not avoid it by standing aloof from us; what you call Christian, I call worldly prudence.

I speak as a fool: bear with me. I am clearly satisfied, that you have far more faith, more love, and more of the mind that was in Christ than I have. But have you more gifts for the work of God? Or more fruit of your labour? Has God owned you more? I would he had, a thousand fold! I pray God, that he may! Have you at present more experience of the wisdom of the world and the devices of Satan? Or of the manner and method wherein it pleases God to counter-work them in this period of his Providence? Are you sure, God would add nothing to you by me, (besides what He might add to me by you?) Perhaps when the time is slipped out of your hands, when I am no more seen, you may wish you had not rejected the assistance of, even

Your affectionate brother,

TO THE REV. MR. WALKER.

J. W.

October, 1758.

REV. AND DEAR SIR,

I RETURN you many thanks for the welcome letter from Mr. Adam, as well as for your own. I have answered his, (which is written in a truly Christian spirit,) and now proceed to consider yours. After having observed, That two of our preachers are gone from us, and none of these remaining (to my knowledge,) have at present, any desire or design of separating from the Church, yet I observe,