Second Letter to Mr. Clarke.

SECOND LETTER

TO

THE REVEREND MR. CLARKE.

———

REV. SIR, LONDON, September 10, 1756.

YESTERDAY I received your favor of July 9. As you therein speak freely and openly, I will endeavor 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 hearing 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 wrote by a disciple of mine? Be it good, bad, or indifferent, I am not concerned or anyway 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 Deacons 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 Scripture. The first time I read the term there, is 1 Corinthians 1: I meet with it again, chapter 11:18. But it is plain, by schisms in both places is meant, not any separation from the church, but uncharitable divisions in it. For the Corinthians continued to be one church; and, notwithstanding all their strife and contention, there was no separation of any one party from the rest, with regard to external communion. It is in the same sense the word is used chapter 12:25. And these are the only places in the New Testament where it occurs. Therefore, the indulging any unkind temper toward our fellow-Christians is the true scriptural schism.

Indeed, both heresies (which are also works of the flesh, and consequently damnable, if not repented of) and schisms are here mentioned by the Apostle, in very near the same sense; unless by schisms he meant those inward animosities which occasioned heresies, that is, outward divisions and parties. So that while one said, “I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos;” this implied both schism and heresy. So wonderfully have later ages distorted the words heresy and schism from their scriptural meaning! Heresy is not in all the Bible taken for “an error in fundamentals,” or in anything else; nor schism for any separation made from the outward communion of others. Therefore, both heresy and schism, in the modern sense of the words, are sins that the Scripture knows nothing of.

6. But though I aver this, am I “quite indifferent as to any man’s opinion in religion?” Far, very far from it; as I have declared again and again in the very sermon under consideration, in the “Character of a Methodist,” in the “Plain Account,” and twenty tracts besides. Neither do I “conceal my sentiments:” Few men less. I have written severally, and printed, against Deists, Papists, Mystics, Quakers, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Calvinists, and Antinomians. An odd way of ingratiating myself with them, to strike at the apple of their eye! Nevertheless, in all things indifferent, (but not at the expense of truth,) I rejoice to “please all men for their good to edification;” if haply I may “gain more proselytes” to genuine, scriptural Christianity; if I may prevail upon the more to love God and their neighbor, and to talk as Christ walked.

So far as I find them obstructive of this, I oppose wrong opinions with my might; though even then, rather by guarding those who are yet free, than by disputing with those who are deeply infected. I need not dispute with many of these, to know there is no probability of convincing them. A thousand times have I found my father’s words true: “You may have peace with the Dissenters, if you do not so humor them as to dispute with them. But if you do, they will outface and outlung you; and at the end you will be where you were at the beginning.”

I have now, Sir, humored you, so as to dispute with you a little. But with what probability of success? Suppose you have a single eye in this debate; suppose you aim, not at victory, but at truth only; yet what man of threescore (unless perchance one in an age) was ever convinced of anything? Is not an old man’s motto, Non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris? 17 When we are past middle age, does not a kind of stiffness and inflexibility steal upon the mind as well as the body? And how does this bar the gate against all conviction! even before the eye of the soul too grows dim, and so less and less capable of discerning things which we are not already well acquainted with!

7. Yet on one point I must add a few words, because it is of the last importance: I said, “Orthodoxy, or right opinions, is never more than a slender part of religion; sometimes no part of it at all.” And this I explained thus: “In a child of God, it is but a slender part of religion: It is no part at all in a child of the devil.” The religion of a child of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Now, if orthodoxy be any part of this, (which itself might admit of a question,) it is a very slender part; though it is a considerable help both of love, peace, and joy. Religion is, in other words, the love of God and man, producing all holiness of conversation. Now, are right opinions any more (if they are so much) than a very slender part of this? Once more: Religion is the mind that was in Christ, and the walking as Christ walked. But how very slender a part of this are opinions, how right soever!

By a child of the devil, I mean, one who has no true religion at all; one who neither loves, nor fears, nor serves God. But it is certain, such a man may still be orthodox, may entertain right opinions; and yet, it is equally certain, these are no part of religion in him that has no religion at all. Permit me, Sir, to speak exceeding plainly. Are you not an orthodox man? Perhaps there is none more so in the diocese. And yet possibly you may have no religion at all. If it be true that you frequently drink to excess, you may have orthodoxy, but you can have no religion. If, when you are in a passion, you call your brother, “Thou fool,” you have no religion at all. If you even curse and take the name of God in vain, you can have no other religion than orthodoxy; a religion of which the devil and his angels may have full as much as you.

O Sin; what an idle thing is it for you to dispute about lay Preachers! Is not a lay Preacher preferable to a drunken Preacher? to a cursing, swearing Preacher? “Unto the ungodly saith God, Why takest thou my covenant in thy mouth, whereas thou hatest to be reformed, and hast cast my words behind thee?” In tender compassion I speak this. May God apply it to your heart! Then you will not receive this as an affront, but as the highest instance of brotherly love from,

Rev. Sir,

Your truly affectionate servant,

JOHN WESLEY.