then a superstitious practice ?" Perhaps it is not, if it be practised as a thing indifferent. But if it be done as a necessary thing, then it is flatly superstitious. 6. For this reason I never wished that any bishop should consecrate any chapel or burial-ground of mine. Indeed I should not dare to suffer it; as I am clearly persuaded, the thing is wrong in itself, being not authorized either by any law of God, or by any law of the land. In consequence of which I conceive, that either the clerk or the sexton may as well consecrate the Church, or the Church-yard, as the bishop. 7. With regard to the latter, the church-yard, I know not who could answer that plain question: you say, "This is consecrated ground, so many feet broad, and so many long." But pray, how deep is the consecrated ground?" Deep! What does that signify?" O, a great deal! for if any grave be dug too deep, I may happen to get out of the consecrated ground! And who can tell, what unhappy consequences may follow from this! 8. I take the whole of this practice to be a mere relic of Romish superstition. And I wonder that any sensible Protestant should think it right to countenance it: much more that any reasonable man should plead for the necessity of it! Surely it is high time now, that we should be guided, not by custom, but by Scripture and Reason. Dumfries, May 14, 1788. J. W. DEAR SIR, An Answer to an Important Question. Armagh, June 18, 1787. You ask, "Why do not the Clergy, whether in England or Ireland, avail themselves of the Methodist Preachers ?" You say, "You wonder they do not thankfully accept of their assistance, who desire no pay for their service, in repressing error and wickedness of every kind, and propagating truth and religion?" You inquire, "upon what rational principles can this be accounted for?" To give a complete answer to this question, would require a whole treatise. I have not leisure for this but I will give as full an answer as my time will permit. Only before I answer, I must observe, that many both of the English and Irish Clergy, are entirely out of the question. They are not only learned, but truly religious men, and, as such, are an honour to their profession. I speak only of those that are of a different character, be they many or few. Let them wear the cap whom it fits. That is no concern of mine. This premised, I think it easy to be accounted for, even upon heathen principles. Horace observed long ago, Oderunt hilarem tristes, tristemque jocosi, Accordingly, grave and solemn men (though too few are guilty of this fault) dislike many of the Methodist Preachers for having nothing of that gravity or solemnity about them. Jocose Clergymen, on the other hand, cannot but dislike those who are steadily serious. And those that love to take a cheerful glass, are not fond of such as are strictly temperate. You need go no farther than this consideration to have a clear answer to the question, "Why do many of the Clergy refuse to have any assistance from the Methodist Preachers?" But this may be more fully accounted for upon Christian principles. What says our Lord to the first Preachers of the Gospel, and in them to all their successors? (John xv. 18, and seq.) "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, therefore the world hateth you. These things will they do unto you, because they know not him that sent me." Does not this give us sufficient reason to expect, that if we are not of the world, all the world, all who know not God, whether Clergy or Laity, will be so far from accepting our assistance, that they will sincerely hate us, and openly or privately persecute us, so far as God permits? We have, therefore, reason to wonder, not that they do not desire any union or coalition with us, but that they bear with, yea, and on many occasions, treat us with courtesy and civility. This is a peculiar instance of the providence of God, causing in some measure the scandal of the cross to cease. "But do not many Clergymen, who are not pious men, acknowledge that the Methodists do good, and encourage them to persevere therein ?" They do: but observe how far they would have them go. They wish them to repress outward sin: to reclaim the people from cursing, and swearing, and drunkenness, and sabbath-breaking, (unless the squire gains by it.) They are well pleased, that their parishioners grow more diligent and honest, and are constant attendants on the Church and Sacrament. Nay, they are glad that they are brought to practise both justice and mercy; in a word, to be moral men. But the truth is, the Methodists know and teach, that all this is nothing before God: that whoever goes thus far and no farther, is building upon the sand: that he who would worship God to any purpose, must worship him in spirit and in truth: that true religion is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost: even giving God our hearts: the seeking and finding happiness in him. Here then they divide from the Methodists, whom they judge to be going too far. They would have their parishioners moral men; that is, in plain terms, honest heathens, but they would not have them pious men, men devoted to God, Bible Christians. If therefore the Methodist Preachers would stop here, would preach outward religion and no more, many Clergymen would not only encourage them therein, but likewise cordially join them. But when they persuade men, nol to be almost, but altogether Christians, to maintain a constant fellowship with the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ: to be transformed into that image of God, wherein they were created, and thenceforth to live that life which is hid with Christ in God: let them not expect, that any will give them the right-hand of fellowship, but those God hath chosen oul of the world. I am, your's, &c. J. W. YOU desire me to give you my thoughts freely on the present state of public affairs. But do you consider? I am no politician: politics lie quite out of my province. Neither have I any acquaintance, at least no intimacy, with any that bear that character. And it is no easy matter to form any judgment concerning things of so complicated a nature. It is the more difficult, because in order to form our judgment, such a multitude of facts should be known, few of which can be known with tolerable exactness by any but those who are eye-witnesses of them. And how few of these will relate what they have seen precisely as it was, without adding, omitting, or altering any circumstance, either with or without design! And may not a slight addition or alteration give a quite different colour to the whole ? And as we cannot easily know with any accuracy, the facts on which we are chiefly to form our judgment, so much less can we expect to know the various springs of action which gave rise to those facts, and on which more than on the bare actions themselves, the characters of the actors depend. It is on this account that an old writer advises us to judge nothing before the time; to abstain as far as possible from judging peremptorily, either of things or persons, till the time comes, when the hidden things of darkness, the facts now concealed, will be brought to light, and the hidden springs of action will be discovered, the thoughts and intents of every human heart. Perhaps you will say, "Nay, every Englishman is a politician; we suck in politics with our mother's milk. It is as natural for us to talk politics as to breathe: we can instruct both the king and his council. We can in a trice reform the state, point out every blunder of this or that minister, and tell every step they ought to take to be arbiters of all Europe." I grant, every cobler, tinker, porter, and hackney-coachman, can do this. But I am not so deep-learned: while they are sure of every thing, I am in a manner sure of nothing; except of that very little which I see with my own eyes, or hear with my own ears. However, since you desire me to tell you what I think, I will do it with all openness. Only please to remember, I do not take upon me to dictate either to you or to any one. I only use the privilege of an Englishman, to speak my naked thoughts: setting down just what appears to me to be the truth, till I have better information. At present, indeed, I have not much information, having read little upon this head but the public papers. And you know, these are mostly on one side; in them little is to be seen on the other side. And that little is seldom written by masterly writers. How few of them have such a pen as Junius! But supposing we have ever so much information, how little can one rely on it! On the information given by either party! For is not one as warm as the other? And who does not know how impossible it is for a man to see things right, when he is angry? Does not passion blind the eyes of the understanding, as smoke does the bodily eyes? And how little of the truth can we learn from those, who see nothing but through a cloud! This advantage then I have over both parties, the being angry at neither. So that if I have a little understanding from nature or experience, it is (in this instance at least) unclouded by passion. I wish the same happiness which I wish to myself, to those on one side and on the other. I would not hurt either, in the least degree; I would not willingly give them any pain. I have likewise another advantage, that of having no bias one way or the other. I have no interest depending: I want no man's favour, having no hopes, no fears from any man: and having no particular attachment of any kind, to either of the contending parties. But am I so weak as to imagine, that because I am not angry at them, they will not be angry at me? No, I do not imagine any such thing. Probably both will be angry enough; that is, the warm men on both sides, were it only for this, that I am not as warm as themselves. For what is more insufferable to a man in a passion, than to see you keep your temper? And is it not a farther provocation, that I do not behave as he does to his opponent? That I call him no ill names? That I give him no ill words? I expect therefore to be abused on all sides; and cannot be disappointed, unless by being. treated with common humanity. This premised, I come to the point, to give you my Free Thoughts on the present State of Public Affairs, the causes and consequences of the present commotions. But permit me to remind you, that I say nothing peremptorily. I do not take upon me to affirm, that things are thus or thus. I just set down my naked thoughts, and that without any art or colouring. 66 What then do you think is the direct and principal cause of the present public commotions, of the amazing ferment among the people, the general discontent of the nation?" which now rises to a higher degree than it has done in the memory of man: insomuch that I have heard it affirmed with my own ears, "King George ought to be treated as King Charles was." Is it the extraordinary bad character of the king? I do not apprehend it is. Certainly if he is not, as some think, the best prince in Europe, he is far from being the worst. One not greatly prejudiced in his favour, does not charge him with want of virtue (of this he judges him to have more than enough,) but with wanting those royal vices, which (with Machiavel and the ingenious Doctor Mandeville) he supposes would be public benefits. "But does he not likewise want understanding?" So it has been boldly affirmed. And it must be acknowledged this charge is supported by facts, which cannot be denied. The first is, he believes the Bible: the second, he fears GoD; the third, he loves the queen. Now suppose the first of these, considering the prejudice of education, might consist with some share of understanding, yet how can this be allowed with regard to the second? For although in the times of ignorance and barbarism, men imagined, the fear of God was the beginning of wisdom, our enlightened age has discovered it is the end of it: that whenever the fear of God begins, wisdom is at an end. And with regard to the third, for a man to love his wife, unless perhaps for a month or two, must argue such utter want of sense, as most men of rank are now ashamed of. But after all, there are some, who, allowing the facts, deny the consequence. Who still believe, and that after the most accurate inquiry, from such as have had the best means of information, that there are few noblemen or gentlemen in the nation, (and we have many not inferior to most in Europe) who have either so good a natural understanding, or so general a knowledge of all the valuable parts of learning. "But suppose something might be said for his majesty's understanding, what can be said in excuse of his bad actions? As first, his pardoning a murderer?" I really think something may be said on this head also. Can you or I believe, that the king knew him to be such? Understood him to be a wilful murderer? I am not sure of it at all: neither have you any rational proof: (even supposing this to have been the case, which is far from being clear.) And if he did not know or believe him to be such, how can he be blamed for pardoning him? Not to have pardoned him in this case, would have been inexcusable before God and man. But what can be said in excuse of his being governed by his mother, and fixing all his measures at Carlton house?" It may be said, that if it was so, it is past, and so is no matter of present complaint. But who informed you that it was? Any eye and ear witness? "O, it is in every body's mouth." Very well: but every body is nobody: this proof is no proof at all. And what better proof have you, or |