sign to separate from the Church, it would be well for every Methodist preacher, who has no scruple concerning it, to attend the service of the Church as often as conveniently he can. And the more we attend it, the more we love it, as constant experience shows. On the contrary, the longer we abstain from it, the less desire we have to attend it at all.

6. Lastly, Whereas we are surrounded on every side, by those who are equally enemies to us and to the Church of England; and whereas these are long practised in this war, and skilled in all the objections against it: while our brethren on the other hand are quite strangers to them all, and so on a sudden know not how to answer them: it is highly expedient for every preacher to be provided with sound answers to those objections, and then to instruct the societies where he labours, how to defend themselves against those assaults. It would be therefore well for you carefully to read over the Preservative against unsettled Notions in Religion, together with Serious Thoughts concerning Perseverance, and Predestination calmly considered. And when you are masters of them yourselves, it will be easy for you to recommend and explain them to our societies: that they may no more be tost to and fro by every wind of doctrine; but being settled in one mind and one judgment, by solid scriptural and rational arguments, may grow up in all things into him who is our head, even Jesus Christ. JOHN WESLEY.

I THINK myself bound in duty to add my testimony to my brother's. His twelve reasons against our ever separating from the Church of England, are mine also. I subscribe to them with all my heart. Only with regard to the first, I am quite clear, that it is neither expedient, nor lawful for me to separate: and I never had the least inclination or temptation so to do. My affection for the Church is as strong as ever: and I clearly see my calling; which is, to live and to die in her communion. This, therefore, I am determined to do, the Lord being my helper.

CHARLES WESLEY.

Thoughts on Separation from the Church.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

THE question properly refers (when we speak of a separation from the Church) to a total and immediate separation, such was that of Mr. Ingham's people first, and afterwards that of Lady Huntingdon's, who all agreed to form themselves into a separate body without delay: to go to church no more, and to have no more connexion with the Church of England, than with the Church of Rome.

Such a separation I have always declared against, and certainly it will not take place (if ever it does) while I live. But a kind of VOL. 10.-I

separation has already taken place and will inevitably spread, though by slow degrees. Those ministers, so called, who neither live nor preach the gospel, I dare not say, are sent of God. Where one of these is settled, many of the Methodists dare not attend his ministry; so if there be no other church in that neighbourhood, they go to church no more. This is the case in a few places already, and it will be the case in more, and no one can justly blame me for this, neither is it contrary to any of my professions.

Bristol, Sept. 20, 1788.

J. W.

On the Church: in a Letter to the Rev.

REV. SIR,

Plymouth Dock, Aug. 19, 1785.

I WILL tell you my thoughts with all simplicity, and wait for better information. If you agree with me, well: if not, we can (as Mr. Whitefield used to say,) agree to disagree.

For these forty years I have been in doubt concerning that question: "What Obedience is due to Heathenish Priests and Mitred Infidels ?"

I have from time to time proposed my doubts to the most pious and sensible Clergymen I knew. But they gave me no satisfaction: rather they seemed to be puzzled as well as 1. Some obedience I always paid to the Bishops, in obedience to the laws of the land. But I cannot see, that I am under any obligation to obey them farther than those laws require.

It is in obedience to those laws, that I have never exercised in England the power which I believe God has given me. I firmly believe, I am a scriptural Ex as much as any man in England or in Europe. (For the Uninterrupted Succession I know to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove.) But this does in nowise interfere with my remaining in the Church of England: from which I have no more desire to separate than I had fifty years ago. I still attend all the Ordinances of the Church, at all opportunities. And I constantly and earnestly desire all that are connected with me so to do. When Mr. Smyth pressed us to "separate from the Church," he meant, "Go to Church no more." And this was what I meant seven and twenty years ago, when I persuaded our brethren "Not to separate from the Church." But here another question occurs, "What is the Church of England?" It is not "all the people of England." Papists and Dissenters are no part thereof. It is not all the people of England except Papists and Dissenters. Then we should have a glorious Church indeed! No: according to our twentieth article, a particular Church is "a congregation of faithful people (Catus credentium, the words in our Latin edition,) among whom the Word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly ad

ministered." Here is a true logical definition, containing both the essence and the properties of a Church. What then, according to this definition, is the Church of England? Does it mean all the believers in England, (except the Papists and Dissenters) who have the Word of God and the sacraments duly administered among them?" I fear this does not come up to your idea of "The Church of England." Well, what more do you include in that phrase? "Why, all the believers that adhere to the doctrine and discipline established by the Convocation under Queen Elizabeth." Nay, that discipline is well nigh vanished away, and the doctrine both you and I adhere to.

All those reasons against a separation from the Church in this sense, I subscribe to still. What then are you frightened at? I no more separate from it now, than I did in the year 1758. I submit still (though sometimes with a doubting conscience,) to Mitred Infidels. ì do indeed vary from them in some points of doctrine and in some points of discipline, (by preaching abroad, for instance, by praying extempore, and by forming societies.) But not a hair's breadth further than I believe to be meet, right, and my bounden duty. I walk still by the same rule I have done for between forty and fifty years. I do nothing rashly. It is not likely I should. The high-day of my blood is over. If you will go hand in hand with me, do. But do not hinder me, if you will not help. Perhaps if you had kept closely to me, I might have done better. However, with or without help, I creep on. And as I have been hitherto, so I trust I shall always be, Your affectionate Friend and Brother,

JOHN WESLEY.

Farther Thoughts on Separation from the Church.

1. FROM a child I was taught to love and reverence the Scriptures, the Oracles of God: and next to these, to esteem the Primitive Fathers, the writers of the three first centuries. Next after the

Primitive Church, I esteemed our own, the Church of England, as the most scriptural, national Church in the world. I therefore, not only asserted to all the doctrines, but observed all the rubric in the Liturgy; and that with all possible exactness, even at the peril of my life.

2. In this judgment, and with this spirit, I went to America, strongly attached to the Bible, the Primitive Church, and the Church of England, from which I would not vary in one jot or tittle on any account whatever. In this spirit I returned as regular a clergyman as any in the three kingdoms: till after not being permitted to preach in the Churches, I was constrained to preach in the open air.

3. Here was my first irregularity. And it was not voluntary, but constrained. The second was extemporary prayer. This likewise

I believed to be my bounden duty, for the sake of those who desired me to watch over their souls. I could not in conscience refrain from it: neither from accepting those who desired to serve me as sons in the gospel.

4. When the people joined together, simply to help each other to heaven, increased by hundreds and thousands, still they had no more thought of leaving the Church than of leaving the kingdom. Nay, I continually and earnestly cautioned them against it; reminding them that we were a part of the Church of England, whom God had raised up not only to save our own souls, but to enliven our neighbours, those of the Church in particular. And at the first meeting of all our Preachers in Conference, in June 1744, I exhorted them to keep to the Church, observing that this was our peculiar glory, Not to form any new sect, but abiding in our own Church, to do to all men all the good we possibly could.

5. But as more Dissenters joined with us, many of whom were much prejudiced against the Church, these, with or without design, were continually infusing their own prejudices into their brethren. I saw this, and gave warning of it from time to time, both in private and in public. And in the year 1758, I resolved to bring the matter to a fair issue. So I desired the point might be considered at large, Whether it was expedient for the Methodists to leave the Church? The arguments on both sides were discussed for several days; and at length we agreed, without a dissenting voice, " It is by no means expedient that the Methodists should leave the Church of England."

6. Nevertheless, the same leaven continued to work in various parts of the kingdom. The grand argument (which in some particular cases must be acknowledged to have weight) was this: "The minister of the parish wherein we dwell, neither lives nor preaches the Gospel. He walks in the way to hell himself, and teaches his flock to do the same. Can you advise them to attend his preaching ?" I cannot advise them to it. "What then can they do, on the Lord'sDay, suppose no other Church be near? Do you advise them to go to a dissenting Meeting? Or to meet in their own Preaching-house ?" Where this is really the case, I cannot blame them if they do. Although, therefore, I earnestly oppose the general separation of the Methodists from the Church, yet I cannot condemn such a partial separation, in this particular case. I believe to separate thus far from these miserable wretches, who are the scandal of our Church and nation, would be for the honour of our Church, as well as to the glory of God.

7. And this is no way contrary to the profession which I have made above these fifty years. I never had any design of separating from the Church. I have no such design now. I do not believe, the Methodists in general design it, when I am no more seen. I do, and will do, all that is in my power to prevent such an event. Nevertheless, in spite of all that I can do, many of them will separate from it; (although I am apt to think, not one half, perhaps not a third of them.) These will be so bold and injudicious, as to form

a separate party, which consequently will dwindle away, into a dry, dull, separate party. In flat opposition to these, I declare once more, that I live and die a member of the Church of England: and that none who regard my judgment or advice, will ever separate from it. JOHN WESLEY.

Lo idon, Dec. 11, 1789.

Thoughts on the Consecration of CHURCHES and BURIAL-GROUNDS.

1. IT has been a custom for some ages, in Roman Catholic countries, to have a particular form of consecration, for all Churches and Chapels: and not for these only, but for every thing pertaining to then; such as fonts, chalices, bells, sacerdotal vestments, and church-yards in particular. And all these customs universally prevailed in England, as long as it was under the papal power.

2. From the time of our Reformation from Popery, most of these customs fell into disuse. Unconsecrated bells were rung without scruple, and unconsecrated vestments worn. But some of them remained still the consecration of churches and church-yards in particular: and many scrupled the performing divine service in an unconsecrated church: and could not consent that their bodies should be buried in unconsecrated ground.

3. Accordingly the consecrating of churches and church-yards has been practised in England ever since. But it is a thing purely indifferent, being neither forbidden, nor established by law. The case is different in Ireland. While the Earl of Stafford was lordlieutenant of that kingdom, a law was made for the consecration not only of churches, but of church-yards also. And a form of consecration for both was inserted in the Common Prayer-book, which is used at this day: much resembling that which Archbishop Laud used, in the consecration of St. Katherine-Creed's Church, in London.

4. But such a law has never passed in England, much less been inserted in our Common Prayer-book. However, such consecration has been generally practised, though not authorized by the Legislature. "Is it then illegal?" That word is capable of a two-fold meaning. It may mean, either without any law in its favour, or against law. I do not conceive it to be illegal, in the latter sense. Perhaps it is in the former: I do not know any law that enjoins, or even permits it.

5. And certainly as it is not enjoined by the law of the land, so it is not enjoined by the law of God. Where do we find one word in the New Testament enjoining any such thing? Neither do I remember any precedent of it in the purest ages of the Church. It seems to have entered, and gradually spread itself, with the other innovations and superstitions of the Church of Rome. "Do you think it