TO LADY

MY LADY,

March 18, 1760.

IT was impossible to see the distress, into which your ladyship was thrown, by the late unhappy affair, without bearing a part of it, without sympathizing with you. But may we not see God therein? May we not both hear and understand his voice? We must allow it is generally "small and still :" yet sometimes he speaks in the whirlwind. Permit me to speak to your ladyship with all freedom; not as to a person of quality, but as to a creature whom the Almighty made for himself, and one that is in a few days to appear be

fore him.

You were not only a nominal, but a real Christian. You tasted of the powers of the world to come. You knew, God the Father had accepted you through his eternal Son. And God the Spirit bore witness with your spirit, that you were a child of God.

But you fell among thieves, and such as were peculiarly qualified to rob you of your God. Two of these in particular were sensible, learned, well-bred, well-natured, moral men. These did not assault you in a rough, abrupt, offensive manner. No; you would then have armed yourself against them, and have repelled all their attacks. But by soft, delicate, unobserved touches, by pleasing strokes of raillery, by insinuations rather than surly arguments, they, by little and little, sapped the foundation of your faith; perhaps, not only of your living faith, your "evidence of things not seen;" but even of your notional. It is well if they left you so much as an assent to the Bible, or a belief, that Christ is God over all ! And what was the consequence of this? Did not your love of God grow cold? Did not you "measure back your steps to earth again?" Did not your love of the world revive? Even of those poor, low trifles, which in your very childhood you utterly despised?

Where are you now? Full of faith? Looking into the Holiest, and seeing Him that is invisible? Does your heart now glow with love to Him, who is daily pouring his benefits upon you? Do you now even desire it? Do you now say, (as you did almost twenty years ago)

Keep me dead to all below,
Only Christ resolv'd to know!
Firm, and disengag'd, and free,
Seeking all my bliss in Thee!

Is your taste now for heavenly things? Are not you a lover of pleasure, more than a lover of God? And, O! what pleasure? What is the pleasure of visiting? Of modern conversation? Is there any more reason than religion in it? I wonder, what rational appetite does it gratify? Setting religion quite out of the question, I cannot conceive, how a woman of sense can-relish, should I say? No.. but suffer so insipid an entertainment.

LETTER TO LORD

O that the time past may suffice! Is it not now high time that you should awake out of sleep? Now God calls aloud! My dear lady, now hear the voice of the Son of God and live! The trouble

in which your tender parent is now involved may restore all that reverence for her, which could not but be a little impaired, while you supposed she was "righteous over-much." O how admirably does God lay hold of, and "strengthen the things that remain in you?" Your gratitude, your humane temper; your generosity; your filial tenderness? And why is this, but to improve every right temper, to free you from all that is irrational or unholy, to make you all that you were, yea, all that you should be; to restore you to the whole image of God! I am, my Lady, your's, &c.

J. WESLEY.

TO LORD

MY LORD,

July 26, 1764.

UPON an attentive consideration, it will appear to every im partial person, that the uniting of the serious clergy, in the manner I proposed in a former letter, is not a matter of indifferency; but what none can reject, unless at the peril of his own soul. For every article therein mentioned, is undeniably contained in the royal law, the law of love; and consequently the observance thereof, is bound upon every man, as indispensably necessary to salvation. It will appear farther, that every single person may observe it whether the other will or not. For many years, I, for instance, have observed this rule in every article. I labour to do so now, and will, by God's help, whatever others do, observe it to the end.

I rejoice that your lordship so heartily concurs in doing what is in your power, to promote a general observance of it. Certainly this is not possible to be effected by merely human means: but it seems your lordship has taken one good step towards it, by communicating it to several. I am persuaded, at the same time, your lordship's approbation and wish is, that it might take place every where. The same step I purpose to take, by sending to each of those gentlemen, the substance of what I wrote to your lordship, and desiring them to tell me freely, whatever objections they have against such a union. As many of those as are grounded on reason, I doubt not, will be easily answered. Those only which spring from some wrong temper must remain, till that temper is subdued. For instance: first, we cannot unite, says one, because we cannot trust one another. I answer to your reason or understanding, no matter whether we can or not. Thus far we must unite, trust or not, otherwise we sin against God: secondly, I can trust you, why cannot you trust me? I can have no private end herein. personal hopes nor fears from you. I want nothing which you can I have neither give me; and I am not afraid of your doing me any hurt; though

But I cannot answer.

you may hurt yourself and the cause of God. your envy, jealousy, pride, or credulity, as long as those remain.. Objections, however cut off, will spring up again like hydras' heads.

If your lordship has heard any objections, I should be glad to know them. May I be permitted to ask, have not the objections you have heard, made some impression upon your lordship? Have they not occasioned (if I may speak freely) your lordship's standing aloof from me? Have they not set your lordship farther and farther off, ever since I waited upon you at ? Why do I ask? Indeed not. upon my own account. Quid mea? Ego in porto navigo. I can truly say, I neither fear, nor desire any thing from your lordship: to speak a rough truth, I do not desire any intercourse with any persons of quality in England. I mean, for my own sake: they do me no good, and I fear I can do none to them. If it be desired,. I will readily leave all those to the care of my fellow-labourers. I will article with them so to do, rather than this shall be any bone of contention.

Were I not afraid of giving your lordship pain, I would speak yet still further. Methinks you desire I should: that is, to tell you once for all, every thought that rises in my heart. I will then. At present I do not want you, but I really think you want me. For have you a person in all England, who speaks to your lordship so plain and downright as I do? Who remembers not the Peer but the man? not the Earl, but the immortal Spirit? Who rarely commends, but often blames, and perhaps would do it oftener if you desired it: who is jealous over you with a godly jealousy, lest you should be less a Christian by being a nobleman? Lest, after having made a fair advance towards heaven, you should measure back your steps to earth again. O my lord, is not such a person as this needful for you in the highest degree? If you have any such, I have no more to say, but that I pray God to bless him to your soul. If you have not, despise not even the assistance which it may please God to give you by my lord, Your Lordship's ready Servant, J. WESLEY.

TO THE REV. MR. H.

:

DEAR SIR, March 27, 1764. YOUR book on the Millennium and the Mystie Writers, was lately put into my hands. I cannot but thank you for your strong and seasonable confirmation of that comfortable doctrine of which I cannot entertain the least doubt, as long as I believe the Bible. I thank you likewise for your remarks on that bad performance of the Bishop of G-, which undoubtedly tears up by the roots, all real, internal religion. Yet at the same time I cannot but bewail, your vehement attachment to the Mystic Writers: with whom I conversed much for several years, and whom I then admired, perhaps more than you do now. But I found at length an absolute necessity, of giving up either them, or the Bible. So after some time, I fixed my

choice, to which I hope to adhere to my life's end. It is only the extreme attachment to these, which can account for the following words. "Mr. W. does, in several parts of his Journals, lay down some marks of the new-birth, not only doubtful, but exceptionable: as particularly where persons appeared agitated or convulsed, under the ministry which might be owing to other causes rather than any regenerating work of God's Spirit," p. 385.

Is this true? In what one part of my Journals do I lay down any doubtful, much less exceptionable, marks of the new-birth? In no part do I lay down those agitations or convulsions as any marks of it at all. Nay, I expressly declare the contrary, in those very words which the Bishop himself cites from my Journal. I declare, "These are of a disputable nature; they may be from God; they may be from nature; they may be from the Devil." How is it then that you tell all the world, "Mr. W. lays them down in his Journals as marks of the new-birth?"

Is it kind? Would it not have been far more kind, suppose I had spoken wrong, to tell me of it in a private manner? How much more unkind was it, to accuse me to all the world, of a fault which I never committed?

Is it wise thus to put a sword into the hands of our common enemy? Are we not both fighting the battles of our Lord, against the world, as well as the flesh and the Devil? And shall furnish them with weapons against you, or you against me? Fine diversion for the children of the Devil! And how much more would they be diverted, if I would furnish my quota of the entertainment; by falling upon you in return? But I bewail the change in your spirit: you have not gained more lowliness or meekness since I knew you! O beware! You did not use to despise any one. This you have gained from the authors you admire. They do not express anger toward their opponents, but contempt in the highest degree. And this, I am afraid, is far more antichristian, more diabolical, than the other. The God of love deliver you and me from this spirit, and fill us with the mind that was in Christ. So prays,

Dear Sir, your still affectionate Brother,

J. WESLEY.

TO THE REV. MR. PLENDELEITH.

REV. AND DEAR SIR,

May 23, 1768. 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. Stennet, 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. Stennet 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. E. has spoken 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. 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 any thing unfair or disingenuous in it?

He objects, Secondly, That I "assert the attainment of Sinless Perfection by all born of God." I am sorry Mr. E. should affirm this again. I need give no other answer, than I gave before, in the seventh page of the little tract I sent him two years ago.

"I do not maintain this. I do not believe it. I believe Christian Perfection is not attained by any of the children of God, till they are what the Apostle John terms Fathers. And this I expressly declare in that sermon which Mr. E. so largely quotes."

He objects, Thirdly, That I "deny the imputation of Christ's active obedience." Since I believed Justification by Faith, which I have done upwards of thirty years, I have constantly maintained that we are pardoned and accepted wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ hath both done and suffered for us.

Two or three years ago Mr. Madan's sister showed him what she had written down of a sermon which I had preached on this subject. He entreated me, to write down the whole and print it, saying, It would satisfy all my opponents. I was not so sanguine as to expect this I understood mankind too well. However, I complied with his request a few were satisfied. The rest continued just as they were before.

As long as Mr. E. continues of the mind expressed in his Theological Essays, there is no danger that he and I should agree, any more than light and darkness. I love and reverence him; but not his doctrine. I dread every approach to Antinomianism. I have seen the fruits of it, over the three kingdoms. I never said, that Mr. E. and I were agreed. I will make our disagreement as public as ever he pleases: only I must specify the particulars. If he will fight with me, it must be on this ground. And then let him do what he will, and what he can..