A Letter to Mr. N—— .

LETTER TO MR. N——.

———

MY DEAR BROTHER, KINGSWOOD, September 3, 1756.

IN your letters of July, and August 27, you charge me, first, with self-inconsistency, in tolerating lay preaching, and not lay administering; and, secondly, with showing a spirit of persecution, in denying my brethren the liberty of acting (as well as thinking) according to their own conscience. As to the former charge, the fact alleged is true: I do tolerate unordained persons in preaching the Gospel; whereas I do not tolerate them in administering the sacraments. But it is not true, that I am self-inconsistent in so doing. I act on one and the same principle still. My principle (frequently declared) is this, “I submit to every ordinance of man, wherever I do not conceive there is an absolute necessity for acting contrary to it.” Consistently with this, I do tolerate lay preaching, because I conceive there is an absolute necessity for it; inasmuch as were it not, thousands of souls would perish everlastingly. Yet I do not tolerate lay administering, because I do not conceive there is any such necessity for it; seeing it does not appear, that, if this is not at all, one soul will perish for want of it.

I am therefore so far from self-inconsistency in tolerating the former, and not the latter, that I really should be self inconsistent were I to act otherwise: Were I to break, or allow others to break, an ordinance of man, where there is no necessity, I should contradict my own principle, as much as if I did not allow it to be broken where there is. As to the latter charge, that “I deny my brethren the liberty of acting according to their own conscience, and therefore show a spirit of persecution;” I again allow the fact, but deny the consequence. I mean, I allow the fact thus far: Some of our Preachers, who are not ordained, think it quite right to administer the Lord’s supper, and believe it would do much good. I think it quite wrong, and believe it would do much hurt. Hereupon I say, “I have no right over your conscience, nor you over mine: Therefore, both you and I must follow our own conscience. You believe, it is a duty to administer: Do so; and therein follow your own conscience. I verily believe it is a sin; which, consequently, I dare not tolerate; and herein I follow mine.” Yet this is no persecution, were I to separate from our society (which I have not done yet) those who practice what I believe is contrary to the word, and destructive of the work, of God. Last week I had a long letter from William Darney, who likewise wonders we should be of so persecuting a spirit as to deny him the liberty of thinking and speaking in our societies according to his own conscience. How will you answer him, and excuse Ted and Charles Perronet from the charge of persecuting their brothers. They then said, (as did all,) “Let him preach Calvinism elsewhere; (we have no right to hinder him;) but not among us, because we are persuaded it would do much hurt.” Take the answer back: If it was good in one case, so was it in the other likewise. If John Jones, my brother, or any other Preacher, has preached sharply on this head, I certainly am a stranger to it, and therefore not answerable for it. I persecute no man on this account, or any other; and yet I cannot consent, that any of our lay Preachers should either preach predestination, or administer the sacraments, to those who are under my care. But is it immoral? It is immoral to think, speak, or act, contrary to the love which “thinketh no evil.” Now of this, both Charles and you are palpably guilty, in thinking the body of the Methodists (either Preachers or people) are fallen from the simplicity and uprightness of the Gospel. Whatever seven or eight of the Preachers may be, who have warmly debated this point with you; whatever two or three hundred of the people may be, who have been hurt by the disputants on either side; the main body of the Methodists never were more simple or upright than at this day. Therefore your thinking so ill of both Preachers and people is a manifest breach of the law of love. And whoever is, or is not, fallen from the spirit of the Gospel, it is certain, you are, for one.

But after all this pother, what is this persecution, concerning which you make so loud an outcry? Why, some of our lay Preachers did what we thought was both ill in itself, and likely to do much harm among the people. Of this, complaint was made to me. And what did I do? Did I expel those Preachers out of our community? Not so. Did I forbid them to preach any more? Not so, neither. Did I degrade them from Itinerant to Local Preachers? Not so much as this. I told them, I thought the thing was wrong, and would do hurt, and therefore advised them to do it no more. Certainly this is a new species of persecution! I cannot but think you might as well call it murder.

“O, but you would have done more, if they had persisted.” That is, I would have persecuted. Whatever I would have done if things had been which were not, I have not done it yet. I have used no arbitrary, no coercive power; nay, no power at all in this matter, but that of love. I have given no man an ill word or an ill look on the account. I have not withdrawn my confidence or my conversation from any. I have dealt with every man, as, if the tables were turned, I should desire he would deal with me.

“But I would not dispute with you.” Not for a time: Not till your spirits were a little evaporated. But you argue too fast, when you infer from hence, that I myself cannot confute your favorite notion. You are not sure of that. But come what will, you are resolved to try. Well then, move fair and softly. You and Charles Perronet aver, that you have a right to administer the Lord’s supper; and that therefore you ought to administer it among the Methodists, or to separate from them. If the assertion were proved, I should deny the consequence. But first, I desire proof of the assertion.

Let him or you give the proof, only without any flourish or rhetorical amplifications, (which exceedingly abound in all C. P.’s letters to my brother on this subject,) and I will give you an answer, though we are not on even ground; for you have no business, and I have no leisure. And if you continue instant in prayer, particularly for a lowly and teachable spirit, I do not despair of your finding both that life and love which you have not lately enjoyed.

I am

Your affectionate brother,

JOHN WESLEY.

I shall add a few remarks on C. P.’s letters, though the substance of them is contained in your “Some of the fundamentals of your constitution are wrong.” Our fundamentals are laid down in the “Plain Account.” Which of these is wrong, and yet “born by you for eight years?”

“O inconsistency! O excuseless tyranny!” etc. Flourish. Set that down for nothing. “These very men who themselves break the laws of the States deny us liberty of conscience.” In plain terms, These very men who preach the Gospel contrary to law, do not approve of our administering the sacraments. They do not. They greatly disapprove of it; and that without any inconsistency at all: Because the case is not parallel. The one is absolutely necessary to the salvation of thousands; the other not. “Your brother has to the last refused me liberty of conscience.” Under what penalty? This heavy charge amounts in reality to this: I still think you have no right to administer the Lord’s supper; in consequence of which, I advise you not to do it. Can I do less? Or have I done more? “I wish I could say, that anything of wicked lewdness would have met with the same opposition!” Is not this pretty, brother Norton? Do you subscribe to this? I think you know us better. Do we not so much as advise our Preachers and people to abstain from wicked lewdness? “Can it be denied that known wantonness, that deceit and knavery, have been among us, and that little notice has been taken of it?” I totally deny it. Much notice has been taken, by me in particular, of what evil has been done by any Preacher. I have constantly examined all the parties; and have, in every instance, so far animadverted on the delinquent as justice joined with mercy required.

“My crime is, that I would worship Christ, as his word, his Spirit, and my own conscience teach me. Let God and man be witness that we part for this and nothing else.” Namely, because I am of a different judgment, and cannot approve of what I judge to be wrong. So says W. Darney, “My crime is, that I would preach Christ, as His word, His Spirit, and my own conscience teach me.” But he has far more ground for complaint than you: For we ourselves separated him from us; whereas you call God and man to witness, that you separate yourself for this and nothing else, that I cannot approve what I judge to be wrong.

But this is not all your crime: You have also drank into the spirit of James Wheatley; and you have adopted his very language: You are become, like him, an accuser of your brethren. O Charles, it was time you should separate from them; for y our heart was gone from them before! “Whatever motives of another kind might be blended with those that really belonged to conscience, in your rejecting what I laid before you,” (not consenting that I should administer,) “God knows.” I know of none. I have no other motive of acting, than the glory of God and the good of souls. Here again you are become not only an accuser, but a false accuser, and an unjust judge, of your brother.

“You grant more to others. To my certain knowledge, both of you have been told for more than two years, that James Morris administered.” You may as well say, “To my certain knowledge, black is white.” I never was told it to this day, unless by C. Perronet. But whether he does or no, it is nothing to me. He never was in close connection with us: He is now in no connection at all. We have totally renounced him. So here is another instance of accusing, yea, falsely accusing, your brethren. “A man may be circumcised, count his beads, or adore a cross, and still be a member of your society.” That is, may be a Papist or a Jew. I know no such instance in England or Ireland. We have many members in Ireland, that were Papists; but not one that continues so.

“Other reasons than those that could possibly relate to conscience have born too much share in the late affair.” I say as before, I am not conscious of it. And who art thou that judgest another’s servant?

“You have allowed, we are called to this by the Holy Ghost, and that God was with us in what we did.” I allow! No more than I allow you to be archangels. I allow neither the one nor the other. I believe you felt joy, or power, so called; but I do not know that it was from God; and I said, “Supposing you were called of God to this,” (which is exceeding far from granting it,) “still you ought to wave that privilege out of tenderness to your brethren.” I do not grant, either that God calls you to do this, or that he ever blessed you in it.

That Methodism, (so called,) that is, vital religion, loving faith, in the hearts of those who are vulgarly termed Methodists, should seem to you, sitting snug at London or Bristol, to be “very much in its decline,” is no wonder. But I, who see things in every place with my own eyes, know it is very much in its increase. Many are daily added to them that believe; many more are continually awakened; so that the societies from east to west, from north to south, in both kingdoms, increase in grace, as well as number.

“I wish the argument” (which is no argument at all, as being grounded on a palpable mistake) “be not too home to bear a dispute among honest men.” Very well! Another clear proof of the love that thinketh no evil. “If you had consented.” This is the very point. I could not consent (which implies some degree of approbation) to what I judged to be totally wrong. Yet neither did I persecute. I inflicted no penalty of any kind on those whom I judged to have done wrong; because I believed they acted from conscience, though erroneous: I only mildly advised them to desist. “I never will be again united with any who will not let others choose their own religion.” Then you will never unite with any but knaves; for no honest men who preside over any community will let the members of it do what they judge to be wrong, and hurtful to that community, without endeavoring to prevent it, at least, by mild, loving, friendly advice. “I go away, not of choice, but of necessity.” So you must think, till God opens your eyes. “Your kindness at our first acquaintance, the Providence that brought us together, and the keeping up that acquaintance after so many snares of the enemy to destroy it, make it sacred, as well as dear, to me.” And yet for such a reason as this, — because I advise you to abstain from doing what I think you have no right to do; what I judge to be both evil in itself, and productive of ill consequences; for this reason you burst all the bonds asunder, and cast away the cords from you. The Lord God enlighten the eyes of your understanding, and soften and enlarge your heart!

JOHN WESLEY,