did which might be a hinderance on the one hand: nor sordid or dirty, which might give distaste on the other: but plain, as well as clean. The persons who assemble there, are not a gay giddy crowd, who come chiefly to see and be seen: nor a company of goodly, formal, outside Christians, whose religion lies in a dull round of duties: but a people most of whom do, and the rest earnestly seek to worship God in spirit and in truth. Accordingly, they do not spend their time there in bowing and curtsying, or in staring about them: but in looking upward and looking inward, in hearkening to the voice of God, and pouring out their hearts before him.

It is also no small advantage that the person who reads prayers, (though not always the same,) yet is always one, who may be supposed to speak from his heart, one whose life is no reproach to his profession; and one who performs that solemn part of divine service, not in a careless, hurrying, slovenly manner, but seriously and slowly, as becomes him who is transacting so high an affair between God and man.

Nor are their solemn addresses to God interrupted either by the formal drawl of a parish clerk, the screaming of boys, who bawl out what they neither feel nor understand, or the unseasonable and unmeaning impertinence of a voluntary on the organ. When it is seasonable to sing praise to God, they do it with the spirit, and with the understanding also: not in the miserable, scandalous doggerel of Hopkins and Sternhold, but in psalms and hymns which are both sense and poetry: such as would sooner provoke a critic to turn Christian, than a Christian to turn critic. What they sing is therefore a proper continuation of the spiritual and reasonable service; being selected for that end, (not by a poor hum-drum wretch, who can scarcely read what he drones out with such an air of importance, but) by one who knows what he is about, and how to connect the preceding with the following part of the service. Nor does he take just "two staves," but more or less, as may best raise the soul to God: especially when sung in well-composed and well-adapted tunes, not by a handful of wild unawakened striplings, but by a whole serious congregation: and these not lolling at ease, or in the indecent posture of sitting, drawling out one word after another, but all standing before God, and praising him lustily and with a good courage.

Nor is it a little advantage as to the next part of the service, to hear a preacher whom you know to live as he speaks, speaking the genuine gospel of present Salvation through Faith, wrought in the heart by the Holy Ghost: declaring present, free, full justification, and enforcing every branch of inward and outward Holiness. And this you hear done in the most clear, plain, simple, unaffected language; yet with an earnestness becoming the importance of the subject, and with the demonstration of the Spirit.

With regard to the last and most awful part of divine service, the celebration of the Lord's Supper, although we cannot say that either the unworthiness of the minister, or the unholiness of some of the communicants, deprives the rest of a blessing from God, yet do they

greatly lessen the comfort of receiving. But these discouragements are removed from you: you have proof that he who administers, fears God and you have no reason to believe, that any of your fellowcommunicants walk unworthy of their profession. Add to this, that the whole service is performed in a decent and solemn manner, is enlivened by hymns suitable to the occasion, and concluded with prayer that comes not out of feigned lips.

Surely then of all the people in Great Britain, the Methodists would be the most inexcusable, should they let any opportunity slip of attending that worship which has so many advantages, should they prefer any before it; or not continually improve by the advantages they enjoy! What can be pleaded for them, if they do not worship God in spirit and in truth; if they are still outward worshippers only, approaching God with their lips, while their hearts are far from him? Yea, if having known him, they do not daily grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ! J. W.

TO MISS H

ON CHRISTIAN PERFECTION.

Dublin, April 5, 1758.

IT is with great reluctance that I at length begin to write: first, because I abhor disputing, and never enter upon it, but when I am, as it were, dragged into it by the hair of the head; and next, because I have so little hope, that any good will arise from the present dispute. I fear your passions are too deeply interested in the question to admit the force of the strongest reason. So that, were it not for the tender regard I have for you, which makes your desire a motive I cannot resist, I should not spend half an hour in so thankless a labour, and one wherein I have so little prospect of success.

"The doctrine of Perfection, you say, has perplexed you much, since some of our preachers have placed it in so dreadful a light: one of them affirming, a believer, till perfect, is under the curse of God, and in a state of damnation: another, if you die before you have attained it, you will surely perish."

By Perfection, I mean perfect love, or the loving God with all our heart, so as to rejoice evermore, to pray without ceasing, and in every thing to give thanks. I am convinced, every believer may attain this; yet I do not say, he is in a state of damnation, or under the curse of God, till he does attain. No, he is in a state of grace, and in favour with God, as long as he believes: neither would I say, "If you die without it, you will perish:" but rather, "Till you are saved from unholy tempers you are not ripe for glory. There will, therefore, more promises be fulfilled in your soul, before God takes you to himself."

"But none can attain Perfection, unless they first believe it attainable." Neither do I affirm this. I know a Calvinist in London, who never believed it attainable, till the moment she did attain it ;

and then lay declaring it aloud for many days, till her spirit returned to God.

"But you yourself believed twenty years ago, that we should not put off the infection of nature, but with our bodies." I did so. But I believe otherwise now, for many reasons, some of which you afterwards mention. How far Mr. Roquet or Mr. Walsh may have mistaken these, I know not: I can only answer for myself.

"The nature and fitness of things" is so ambiguous an expression, that I never make use of it. Yet if you ask me, Is it fit or necessary, in the nature of things, that a soul should be saved from all sin, before it enters into Glory? I answer, It is. And so it is written, No unclean thing shall enter into it. Therefore, whatever degrees of holiness they did, or did not attain, in the preceding parts of life, neither Jews nor Heathens, any more than Christians, ever did, or ever will enter into the New Jerusalem, unless they are cleansed from all sin before they enter into eternity.

I do by no means exclude the Old Testament from bearing witness to any truths of God. Nothing less: but I say, the experience of the Jews is not the standard of Christian experience and that therefore, were it true, the Jews did not love God with all their heart and soul, it would not follow, therefore no Christian can. Because we may attain what they did not.

But you say, "Either their words do not contain a promise of such perfection, or God did not fulfil this promise to them to whom he made it." I answer, he surely will fulfil it, to them to whom he made it; namely, to the Jews, after their dispersion into all lands; and to these is the promise made: as will be clear to any, who impartially considers the thirtieth Chapter of Deuteronomy, wherein it stands.

I doubt, whether this Perfection can be proved by Luke vi. 40. From 1 John iii. 9, (which belongs to all the children of God,) I never attempted to prove it; but I still think it is clearly described in those words, As he is so are we in this world. And yet it doth not now appear what we shall be, when this vile body is fashioned like unto his glorious body, when we shall see him, not in a glass, but face to face, and be transformed into his likeness.

Those expressions, John xiv. Ye are clean clean every whit, are allowed to refer to justification only. But that expression, If we walk in the light as he is in the light, cannot refer to justification only. It does not relate to justification at all, whatever the other clause may do. Therefore those texts are by no means parallel, neither can the latter be limited by the former: although it is sure the privileges described in both, belong to every adult believer.

But not only abundance of particular texts, but the whole tenor of Scripture declares, Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil, to save us from our sins: all the works of the Devil, all our sins, without any exception or limitation. Indeed should we say, we have no sin to be saved or cleansed from, we should make him come in vain. But it is at least as much for his glory, to cleanse us from them all, before our death as after it.

"But St. James says, In many things we offend all; and whatever we might mean, if alone, the expression, we all, was never before understood to exclude the person speaking.' Indeed it was. It is unquestionably to be understood, so as to exclude Isaiah, the person speaking, chap. lxiv. 6, We are all as an unclean thing-We all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. For this was not the case with Isaiah himself. Of himself he says, (chap. Ixi. 10.) My soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation; he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness: here the prophet, like the apostle, uses the word we instead of you, to soften the harshness of an unpleasing truth.

In this chapter the apostle is not cautioning them against censuring others; but entering upon a new argument: wherein the second verse has an immediate reference to the first; but none at all to the thirteenth of the preceding chapter.

I added, "We offend all, cannot be spoken of all Christians; for immediately there follows the mention of one, who offends not, as the we before mentioned did." You answer, "His not offending in word will not prove that he does not offend in many things." I think St. James himself proves it, in saying, He is able to bridle also the whole body to direct all his actions as well as words, according to the holy, perfect will of God: which those and those only, are able to do, who love God with all their hearts. And yet those very persons can sincerely say, "Forgive us our trespasses." For as long as they are in the body, they are liable to mistake, and to speak or act according to that mistaken judgment. Therefore they cannot abide the rigour of justice, but still need mercy and forgiveness.

Were you to ask, "What if I should die this moment?" I should answer, I believe you would be saved: because I am persuaded none that has faith can die before he is made ripe for glory. This is the doctrine, which I continually teach, which has nothing to do with justification by works. Nor can it discourage any, who have faith, neither weaken their peace nor damp their joy in the Lord. True believers are not distressed hereby, either in life or in death: unless in some rare instance, wherein the temptation of the Devil is joined with a melancholy temper.

Upon the whole, I observe your great argument turns all along on a mistake of the doctrine. Whatever warm expressions may drop from young men, we do not teach, that any believer is under condemnation. So that all the inferences drawn from this supposition, fall to the ground at once.

Your other letter I hope to consider hereafter: though I have great reason to apprehend your prejudice will still be too strong for my arguments. However, whether you expect it or not, I must wish for your perfection. You, of all people, have most need of perfect love; because this alone casts out fear. I am, with great sincerity,

Your affectionate Brother and Servant,
JOHN WESLEY.

TO MR.

REV. SIR,

ON HERESY AND SCHISM.

London, Sept. 10, 1749. YESTERDAY I received your favour of July 9. As you therein speak freely and openly, I will endeavour to do the same; at which, I am persuaded, you will not be displeased.

1. Of the words imputed to Mr. Langston, I said nothing: because he denied the charge. And I had not an opportunity of hear ing the accused and the accuser face to face.

2. That there are Enthusiasts among the Methodists I doubt not; and among every other people under heaven. But, that they are "made such either by our doctrine or discipline," still remains to be proved. If they are such in spite of our doctrine and discipline, their madness will not be laid to our charge.

I know nothing of that anonymous pamphlet on inspiration How does it appear to be written by a disciple of mine? Be it good, bad, or indifferent, I am not concerned, or any way accountable for it.

3. I believe, several who are not episcopally ordained, are called of God to preach the Gospel. Yet I have no objection to the twenty-third Article, though I judge there are exempt cases.

That the seven deasons were outwardly ordained even to that low office, cannot be denied. But when Paul and Barnabas were separated for the work to which they were called, this was not ordaining them. St. Paul was ordained long before, and that not of man, nor by man. It was only inducting him to the province for which our Lord had appointed him from the beginning. For this end the prophets and teachers fasted, prayed, and laid their hands upon them: a rite which was used, not in ordination only, but in blessing, and on many other occasions.

4. Concerning Diocesan Episcopacy, there are several questions I should be glad to have answered. 1. Where is it prescribed in Scripture? 2. How does it appear, that the apostles "settled it in all the churches they planted?" 3. How does it appear, that they so settled it in any, as to make it of perpetual obligation? It is allowed, "Christ and his apostles did put the churches under some form of government or other. But, 1. Did they put all churches under the same precise form? If they did, 2. Can we prove this to have been the very same which now remains in the Church of England?

5. How Favorinus and many more may define both heresy and schism, I am not concerned to know. I well know, Heresy is vulgarly defined, "A false opinion, touching some necessary article of faith;" and Schism, "A causeless separation from a true church." But I keep to my Bible, as our Church in her sixth Article teaches me to do. Therefore, I cannot take Schism for "a separation from a church," true or false: because I cannot find it is ever so taken in VOL. 10.-W