To Rev. Mr. Clarke.

A LETTER

TO

THE REVEREND MR. CLARKE.

———

REV. SIR, CASTLEBAR, July 3, 1766.

I AM obliged to you for the openness and candor with which you write, and will endeavor to follow the pattern which you have set me. I sent that sermon with no particular view, but as a testimony of love to a fellow-laborer in the Gospel.

From the text of that sermon, I do not infer that Christians are not to inquire into each other’s opinions. Indeed, from that text I do not infer anything. I use it to illustrate, not to prove. I am very sensible, “Jehu had more regard to state policy than to religion;” (page 5;) and have no objection at all to the very fair explication which you have given of his words. Accordingly, I say, (page 13,) “What is implied in the question? I do not mean, what did Jehu imply therein, but what should a follower of Christ understand thereby, when he proposes it to any of his brethren?” Of these only I speak. My general proposition, you may please to remember, is this: “All the children of God may unite in love, notwithstanding difference in opinions or modes of worship.” From this persuasion, whenever I meet with any whom I have reason to believe children of God, I do not ask of him with whom I would unite in love, (never at the entrance upon our conversation, seldom till we are a little acquainted,) “Do you agree with my opinions and mode of worship? particularly with regard to church government, baptism, and the Lord’s supper?” I “let all these stand by,” till we begin to know, and have confirmed our love to, each other. Then may come “a more convenient season” for deterring into controversy. My only question at present is, “Is thy heart right?” (Page 13.)

At present, I say, keep your own opinion; I mine. I do not desire you to dispute these points. Whether we shall dispute them hereafter, is another question: Perhaps we may, perhaps we may not. This will depend on a great variety of circumstances; particularly on a probability of success; for I am determined never to dispute at all, if I have no hope of convincing my opponent.

As to my own judgment, I still believe “the Episcopal form of church government to be scriptural and apostolical.” I mean, well agreeing with the practice and writings of the Apostles. But that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe. This opinion, which I once zealously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed of ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet’s “Irenicon.” I think he has unanswerably proved, that “neither Christ nor his Apostles prescribe any particular form of church government; and that the plea of divine right for diocesan Episcopacy was never heard of in the primitive church.”

But, were it otherwise, I should still call these “smaller points” than the “loving God and all mankind.” (Page 18.) And could any man answer those questions, “Dost thou believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, God over all, blessed for ever?” (which indeed no Arian or semi-Arian, and much less Socinian, can do:) “Is God the center of thy soul? the sum of all thy desires? Art thou more afraid of displeasing God, than either of death or hell?” (page 15;) which no wicked man can possibly do; none who is not a real child of God: If, I say, a man could answer these in the affirmative, I would then gladly give him my hand.

This is certainly a principle holden by those who are in derision termed Methodists; and to whom a Popish Priest in Dublin gave the still more unmeaning title of Swaddlers. They all desire to be of a catholic spirit; meaning thereby, not “an indifference to all opinions;” not “indifference as to the manner of public worship:” This they know to be quite another thing. “Love, they judge, gives a title to this character. Catholic love is a catholic spirit.” (Page 25.)

As to heresy and schism, I cannot find one text in the Bible where they are taken in the modern sense. I remember no one scripture wherein heresy signifies “error in opinion,” whether fundamental or not; nor any wherein schism signifies a “separation from the Church,” whether with cause or without. I wish, Sir, you would reconsider this point, and review the scriptures wherein those terms occur.

Yet I would take some pains to recover any one from error, or to reconcile him to our Church: I mean, to the Church of England; from which I do not separate yet, and probably never shall. The little church, in the vulgar sense of the word, which I occasionally mentioned at Holy Mount, is that wherein I read prayers, and preach, and administer the sacrament, every Sunday when I am in London. But I would take much more pains to recover any one from sin. One who lives and dies in error, or in dissent from our Church, may yet be saved; but one who lives and dies in sin must perish. O Sir, let us bend our main force against this! against all sin both in ourselves and them that hear us! I would to God we could all agree both in opinions and outward worship. But if this cannot be, may we not agree in holiness? May we not all agree in being holy, as He that hath called us is holy, both in heart, and in all manner of conversation? This is the great desire of,

Rev. Sir,

Your very humble servant,

JOHN WESLEY.