To Samuel Walker
SELF-IMAGES IN THE LETTERS
If you ask, "How can this be? How can one do good, of whom 'men say all manner of evil'" [cf. Mt. 5:11]? I will put you in mind (though you once knew this — yea, and much established me in that great truth), the more evil men say of me for my Lord's sake, the more good will he do by me. That it is "for his sake" I know, and he knoweth, and the event agreeth thereto; for he mightily confirms the words I speak, by the Holy Ghost given unto those that hear them. O my friend, my heart is moved toward you. I fear you have herein "made shipwreck of the faith" [cf. 1 Tim. 1:19]; I fear "Satan, transformed into an angel of light"
[cf. 2 Cor. 11:14], hath assaulted you and prevailed also. I fear that [the] offspring of hell, worldly or mystic prudence, has drawn you away from the simplicity of the gospel. How else could you ever conceive that the being reviled and "hated of all men" [cf. Mt. 10:22] should make us less fit for our Master's service? How else could you ever think of "saving yourself and them that hear you" [cf. 1 Tim. 4:16] without being "the filth and offscouring of the world" [cf. 1 Cor. 4:13]. To this hour is this
Scripture true. And I therein rejoice — yea, and will rejoice. Blessed be God, I enjoy the reproach of Christ! O may you also be vile, exceeding vile, for his sake! God forbid that you should ever be other than generally scandalous; I had almost said universally. If any man tell you there is a new way of following Christ, "he is a liar, and the truth is not in him" [1 Jn. 2:4]. 1am, .
To Samuel Walker?* Bristol, September 24, 1755 Reverend Dear Sir, 1. You greatly oblige me by speaking your thoughts so freely, and the more by giving me hopes of seeing your further sentiments on so nice
1. Cf. Letters, Ul, 144-47; cf. Wesley Historical Society Proceedings, XXVI, 84.
Samuel Walker of Truro in Cornwall was another of several evangelical priests of the Church of England whose ministry was in many ways parallel to Wesley's but who sternly deplored any move that might lead to separation from the Church. Wesley regarded him warmly as colleague and ally, but was prepared to resist his warnings that his societies were necessarily headed into dissent. The date of this letter should be noted. It falls directly after the first annual conference in which the "separatists" among Wesley's preachers had made a massive push to carry the Methodists into outright separation (see above, pp. 21-22). It was from this date that Charles Wesley — as staunch a churchman as Walker
— began to pull back from
THE THEOLOGIAN SELF-INTERPRETED
and important an affair. I did not delay one day to follow your advice with regard to Mr. Adam, but sent him by the very next post a copy of those papers; although I am satisfied already as to the publishing them and have laid aside that design, the reasons you urge against the expediency of it being abundantly sufficient. But you seem a little to misapprehend what we speak of hearing predestinarian preachers. We find by long experience that this is "deadly poison," not in itself, but to the members of our Societies. This we know to be an unquestionable truth; and it was a truth necessary to be observed, nay, and strongly insisted on (though without any design of bearing hard on any particular person) when many were enlarging on the "poisonous doctrines" which they heard at many of their parish churches.
2. All that you say concerning the inexpediency of a separation from the Church I readily allow; as likewise that the first and main question must be, "Is it lawful to separate?" Accordingly, this was debated first, and that at large, in seven or eight long conversations.? And it was then only, when we could not agree concerning this, that we proceeded to weigh the expediency of it.
3. As to the grounds on which those who plead for a separation from the Church proceed, some of them have weighed the point long and deeply. They have particularly, and with earnest and continued prayer, considered the lawfulness of it. And they allow, "If it be lawful to abide therein, then it is not lawful to separate." But they aver, "It is not lawful to abide therein"; and that for the following reasons:
First. With regard to the liturgy itself: though they allow it is, in the general, one of the most excellent human compositions that ever was, yet they think it is both absurd and sinful to declare such an assent and consent as is required to any merely human composition. Again: though they do not object to the use of forms, yet they dare not confine themselves to his association with the lay preachers and to reduce his activity as his brother's colleague. This was also the time when the slogan, "Separation is lawful but not expedient," was first invoked against the spirit of revolt. Thus, this letter coincides with the beginnings of a long struggle in which John Wesley had to stand off opposite pressures and try to hold his movement within the Church of England — sometimes by no more than the sheer weight of his personal authority. It is plain, however, that in these first months after the crisis of 1755 Wesley was nearer the precipice of "separation" than he had been before or would be thereafter. Hence, the poignant intensity of this letter to a reproachful ally.
2. In the conference of the previous May 6-11.
SELF-IMAGES IN THE LETTERS
them. And in this form (the Book of Common Prayer) there are several things which they apprehend to be contrary to Scripture.
Secondly. As to the laws of the Church, if they include the canons and decretals, both [of] which are received as such in our courts, they think
"the latter are the very dregs of popery, and that many of the former, the canons of 1603,° are as grossly wicked as absurd." And, over and above the objections which they have to several particular ones, they think
"(1) that the spirit which they breathe is throughout truly popish and anti-Christian; (2) that nothing can be more diabolical than the ipso facto excommunication so often denounced therein; (3) that the whole method of executing these canons, the process used in our spiritual courts, is too bad to be tolerated, not in a Christian, but in a Mahometan or pagan nation."
Thirdly. With respect to the ministers, they doubt "whether there are not many of them whom God hath not sent, inasmuch as they neither live the gospel nor teach it, neither indeed can, seeing they do not know it." They doubt the more "because they themselves disclaim that inward call to the ministry which is at least as necessary as the outward." And they are not clear "whether it be lawful to attend the ministrations of those whom God has not sent to minister."
Fourthly. The doctrines actually taught by these, and indeed by a great majority of the Church ministers, they think, "are not only wrong, but fundamentally so, and subversive of the whole gospel." They therefore doubt "whether it be lawful to bid them Godspeed or to have any fellowship with them."
I will freely acknowledge that I cannot answer these arguments to my own satisfaction. So that my conclusion, which I cannot yet give up
(that it is lawful to continue in the Church), stands, I know not how, almost without any premises that are able to bear its weight.*
3. The anti-Puritan canons promulgated by Convocation in July 1604, at the urging of Richard Bancroft, and with the support of King James. They had, however, been framed in 1603 (largely by Bancroft and Thomas Bilson
— both strong supporters of divine-right episcopacy). They figured prominently in the debates of the Hampton Court Conference in January 1604. Cf. Edward Cardwell, A History of the Conferences ... (Oxford, 1849), 121-228; Felix Makower, The Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England (1895), 488-502. See below, p. 416.
4. Cf. Letters, Il, 131 f.; see also John Wesley, A Preservative Against Unsettled
Notions in Religion (Bristol, 1758), 237-46, for "Reasons Against a Separation from the Church of England."
THE THEOLOGIAN SELF-INTERPRETED
My difficulty is very much increased by one of your observations. I know the original doctrines of the Church are sound. I know her worship is (in the main) pure and scriptural. But if "the essence of the Church of England, considered as such, consists in her orders and laws" (many of which I myself can say nothing for) "and not in her worship and doctrines," those who separate from her have a far stronger plea than I was ever sensible of.
4. At present I apprehend those, and those only, to separate from the Church who either renounce her fundamental doctrines or refuse to join her public worship. As yet we have done neither, nor have we taken one step farther than we were convinced was our bounden duty. It is from a full conviction of this that we have (1) preached abroad, (2) prayed extempore, (3) formed Societies, and (4) permitted preachers who were not episcopally ordained. And were we pushed on this side, were there no alternative allowed, we should judge it our bounden duty rather wholly to separate from the Church than to give up any one of these points. Therefore, if we cannot stop a separation without stopping lay preachers, the case is clear — we cannot stop it at all.
5. "But if we permit them, should we not do more? Should we not appoint them rather, since the bare permission puts the matter quite out of our hands and deprives us of all our influence?" In great measure, it does; therefore to appoint them is far more expedient, if it be lawful. But is it lawful for presbyters circumstanced as we are to appoint other ministers? This is the very point wherein we desire advice, being afraid of leaning [on] > our own understanding.
It is undoubtedly "needful," as you observe, "to come to some resolution in this point," and the sooner the better. I therefore rejoice to hear that you think "this matter may be better and more inoffensively ordered and that a method may be found which, conducted with prudence and patience, will reduce the constitution of Methodism to due order, and render the Methodists under God more instrumental to the ends of practical religion."
This, sir, is the very thing I want. I must therefore beg your sentiments on this head, and that as particularly as your other engagements will allow. Wishing you more and more of the wisdom from above, I remain, reverend dear sir, Your obliged and affectionate brother and servant,
5. Telford reads to.