"The doctrine of Perfection, you say, has perplexed you much, since some of our preachers have placed it in so dreadful a light: one of them affirming, a believer, till perfect, is under the curse of God, and in a state of damnation: another, if you die before you have attained it, you will surely perish."

By Perfection, I mean, perfect love, or the loving God with all our heart, so as to rejoice evermore, to pray without ceasing, and in every thing to give thanks. I am convinced, every believer may attain this; yet I do not say, he is in a state of damnation, or under the curse of God, till he does attain. No, he is in a state of grace, and in favour with God, as long as he believes; neither would I say, "If you die without it, you will perish :" but rather, "Till you are saved from unholy tempers, you are not ripe for glory. There will, therefore, more promises be fulfilled in your soul, before God takes you to himself."

"But none can attain Perfection, unless they first believe it attainable." Neither do I affirm this. I know a Calvinist in London, who never believed it attainable, till the moment she did attain it; and then lay declaring it aloud for many days, till her spirit returned to God.

"But you yourself believed twenty years ago, that we should not put off the infection of nature, but with our bodies." I did so. But I believe otherwise now, for many reasons, some of which you afterwards mention. How far Mr. Roquet or Mr. Walsh may have mistaken these, I know not: I can only answer for myself.

"The nature and fitness of things" is so ambiguous an expression, that I never make use of it. Yet if you ask me, Is it fit or necessary, in the nature of things, that a soul should be saved from all sin, before it enters into glory? I answer, It is. And so it is written, No unclean thing shall enter into it. Therefore, whatever degrees of holiness they did, or did not attain, in the preceding parts of life, neither Jews nor Heathens, any more than Christians, ever did, or ever will enter into the New Jerusalem, unless they are cleansed from all sin, before they enter into eternity.

I do by no means exclude the Old Testament from bearing witness to any truths of God. Nothing less: but I say, the experience of the Jews is not the standard of Christian experience: and that therefore, were it true, the Jews did not love God with all their heart and soul, it would not follow, therefore no Christian can. Because we may attain what they did not.

But you say, "Either their words do not contain a promise of such perfection, or God did not fulfil this promise to them to whom he made it." I answer, he surely will fulfil it, to them to whom he made it; namely, to the Jews, after their dispersion into all lands; and to these is the promise made as will be clear to any, who impartially considers the thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy, wherein it stands.

I doubt, whether this Perfection can be proved by Luke vi. 40. From 1 John iii. 9, (which belongs to all the children of God,) I never attempted to prove it; but I still think it is clearly described in those words, As he is, so are we in this world. And yet it doth not now appear what we shall be, when this vile body is fashioned like unto his glorious body, when we shall see him, not in a glass, but face to face, and be transformed into his likeness.

Those expressions, John xiv. Ye are clean: clean every whit, are allowed to refer to Justification only. But that expression, If we walk in the light as he is in the light, cannot refer to Justification only. It does not relate to Justification at all, whatever the other clause may do. Therefore those texts are by no means parallel, neither can the latter be limited by the former: although it is sure the privileges described in both, belong to every adult believer.

But not only abundance of particular texts, but the whole tenor of Scripture declares, Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, to save us from our sins: all the works of the devil, all our sins, without any exception or limitation. Indeed should we say, we have no sin to be saved or cleansed from, we should make him come in vain.

But it is at least as much for his glory, to cleanse us from them all, before our death as after it.

"But St. James says, In many things we offend all; and whatever we might mean, if alone, the expression, we all, was never before understood to exclude the person speaking." Indeed it was. It is unquestionably to be understood, so as to exclude Isaiah, the person speaking, chap. lxiv. 6, We are all as an unclean thing-We all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. For this was not the case with Isaiah himself. Of himself he says, (chap. lxi. 10.) My soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation; he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness: here the prophet, like the apostle, uses the word we instead of you, to soften the harshness of an unpleasing truth.

In this chapter the apostle is not cautioning them against censuring others; but entering upon a new argument: wherein the second verse has an immediate reference to the first; but none at all to the thirteenth of the preceding chapter.

I added, "We offend all, cannot be spoken of all Christians; for immediately there follows the mention of one, who offends not, as the we before mentioned did." You answer, "His not offending in word will not prove that he does not offend in many things." I think St. James himself proves it, in saying, He is able to bridle also the whole body: to direct all his actions as well as words, according to the holy, perfect will of God: which those, and those only, are able to do, who love God with all their hearts. And yet these very persons can sincerely say, "Forgive us our trespasses." For as long as they are in the body, they are liable to mistake, and to speak or act according to that mistaken judgment. Therefore they cannot abide the rigour of justice, but still need mercy and forgiveness.

Were you to ask, "What if I should die this moment?" I should answer, I believe you would be saved: because I am persuaded none that has faith can die before he is made ripe for glory. This is the doctrine, which I continually VOL. XVI.

D

teach, which has nothing to do with justification by works Nor can it discourage any, who have faith, neither weaken their peace nor damp their joy in the Lord. True believersare not distressed hereby, either in life or in death: unless in some rare instance, wherein the temptation of the devil is joined with a melancholy temper:

Upon the whole, I observe your great argument turns all along on a mistake of the doctrine. Whatever warmexpressions may drop from young men, we do not teach, that any believer is under condemnation. So that all the inferences drawn from this supposition, fall to the ground

at once.

Your other letter I hope to consider hereafter: though I have great reason to apprehend your prejudice will still be too strong for my arguments. However, whether you expect it or not, I must wish for your perfection. You, of all people, have most need of perfect love; because this alone casts out fear. I am, with great sincerity,

Your affectionate Brother and Servant,
JOHN WESLEY.

TO MR.

ON HERESY AND SCHISM.

REV. SIR,

London, Sept. 10, 1749. YESTERDAY I received your favour of July 9. As you therein speak freely and openly, I will endeavour 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 written by a disciple of mine? Be it good, bad, or indifferent, I am not concerned, or any way 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 bless ing, 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?

66

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,"