above all, I cannot but earnestly entreat you, not to rest till you experience what she teaches; till (to sum up all in one word) God cleanses the thoughts of your heart by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit, that you may perfectly love him, and worthily magnify his holy name. Unless

this be done, what will it profit you to increase your fortune, to preserve the fairest reputation, and to gain the favour of the most learned, the most ingenious, and the most honourable clergymen in the kingdom? What will it profit a man to gain all these, and to lose his own soul?

I know that to God all things are possible: therefore it is possible you may take this kindly. If so, I shall hope to receive a line from you. If not, let it be forgotten till we meet at the judgment seat of Christ. I am, dear sir,

Your affectionate servant.

CC.-To Mrs. Maitland.

MAY 12, 1763.

DEAR MADAM,-Both in the former and in the "Farther Thoughts on Christian Perfection," I have said all I have to say on that subject. Nevertheless, as you seem to desire I should, I will add a few words

more.

As to the word perfection, it is Scriptural: therefore neither you nor I can in conscience object to it, unless we would send the Holy Ghost to school, and teach Him to speak who made the tongue.

By Christian perfection, I mean (as I have said again and again) the so loving God and our neighbour, as to "rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in every thing give thanks." He that experiences this, is Scripturally perfect. And if you do not, yet you may experience it: you surely will, if you follow hard after it, for the Scripture cannot be broken. What then does their arguing reprove, who object against Christian perfection? Absolute or infallible perfection I never contended for. Sinless perfection I do not contend for, seeing it is not Scriptural. A perfection, such as enables a person to fulfil the whole law, and so needs not the merits of Christ,-I acknowledge no such perfection; I do now, and always did, protest against it.

"But is there no sin in those who are perfect in love?" I believe not; but be that as it may, they feel none; no temper contrary to pure love, while they rejoice, pray, and give thanks continually. And whether sin is suspended, or extinguished, I will not dispute; it is enough that they feel nothing but love. This you allow we should daily press after. And this is all I contend for. O may the Lord give you to taste of it to-day! I am, dear madam,

Your very

affectionate servant.

CCI.-To Mr. Hart.

JULY 11, 1763.

DEAR SIR,-Abundance of business has prevented my writing so soon as I desired and intended; nor have I time now to write so largely as I could wish, and as your openness and frankness would otherwise constrain me to do. But I cannot delay any longer to write a little, lest I should seem to slight your correspondence.

"If it be the pro

What you before observed is of great importance, viz. fessed aim of the Gospel to convince us that Jesus is the Christ: If I, a sinner, am convinced of the reality of this fact, am not I who believe authorized to expect life, not through any condition, or any act, inward or outward, performed by me, but singly through the name which Jesus assumed, which stands for his whole character or merit?”

Here is the hinge on which Mr. Sandiman's whole system turns. This is the strength of his cause, and you have proposed it with all the strength and clearness which he himself could devise.

Yet suffer me to offer to your consideration a few queries concerning it :

Is every one who is convinced of the reality of this fact, "Jesus is the Christ," a Gospel believer? Is not the devil convinced of the reality of this fact? Is then the devil a Gospel believer?

I was convinced of the reality of this fact when I was twelve years old, when I was without God in the world. Was I then a Gospel believer? Was I then a child of God? Was I then in a state of salvation?

Again, you say, "I who believe am authorized to expect life, not through any condition or act, inward or outward, performed by me."

поп.

I who believe. But cannot you as well expect it without believing? If not, what is believing but a condition? For it is something sine quâ And what else do you, or I, or any one living mean by a condition? And is not believing an inward act? What is it else? But you say, Not performed by me. By whom then? God gives me the power to believe. But does he believe for me? He works faith in me. still is it not I that believe? And if so, is not believing an inward act performed by me?

But

Is not then this hypothesis (to waive all other difficulties) contradictory to itself?

Í have just set down a few hints as they occurred. Wishing you an increase of every blessing, I am, dear sir,

Your very affectionate brother.

CCII.-To Miss T.

BRISTOL, September 29, 1764.
Christian Perfection," you
have been grieved at the
Certainly you may attain

DEAR SISTER,-In the "Thoughts upon have a clear and consistent account of it. I danger I saw you in, of stopping short of it. that blessing soon. And I am thoroughly persuaded, you did taste of it; though how you lost it, I know not.

It will be eternally true, "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth." Have this faith, and you have salvation. And this is the very thing you want. When this is joined with a strong understanding, it is well: but it may exist with a very weak one. This is the case with Mrs. W, whose understanding is extremely weak; and yet she has strong faith, and such as exceedingly profits me; though I take knowledge, that the treasure is in an earthen vessel. I see all that is of nature; but this does not hinder my rejoicing in that which is of grace. This is one branch of Christian simplicity. While reason, assisted from above, enables me to discern the precious from VOL. VI.

48

the vile, I make my full use of the former, without losing one moment in thinking upon the latter. Perhaps reason enlightened makes me simple. If I knew less of human nature, (forgive me for talking so much of myself,) I should be more apt to stumble at the weaknesses of it and if I have (by nature or by grace) some clearness of apprehension, it is owing to this (under God) that I never staggered at all the reveries of George Bell. I saw instantly at the beginning, and from the beginning, what was right, and what was wrong. But I saw withal, "I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now." Hence many imagined I was imposed upon, and applauded themselves for their greater perspicuity, as they do at this day. "But if you knew it," says his friend to Gregory Lopez, "why did you not tell me?" I answer with him, "I do not speak all I know, but all I judge needful." Still I am persuaded, there is no state under heaven from which it is not possible to fall. But I wish you was all love, and then you would not need to take any thought for the morrow. I am

Your affectionate brother.

CCIII.-To Miss L.

1. You want to know God, in order to enjoy him in time and in eternity.

2. Áll that you want to know of him is contained in one book, the Bible. Therefore your one point is, to understand this. And all you learn is to be referred to this, as either directly or remotely conducive to it.

3. Might it not be well then to spend at least two hours every day, in reading and meditating upon the Bible? reading every morning (if not every evening too) a portion of the Old and then of the New Testament? If you would save yourself the trouble of thinking, add Mr. Henry's Comment; if you would only be assisted in thinking, add the Explanatory Notes.""

4. But I find a difficulty already. Can you help me over it? Have you more candour than almost any one in the world? Will you not blame me for recommending, as they come in the way, tracts published by myself? I think you will not. So I will set down these (in their place) as freely as other books.

5. Your studying hours (if your constitution will bear it) might be five or six hours a day. Perhaps from niue to twelve in the morning, and from two to four or five in the afternoon. And whenever you begin to be tired with books that require a strong and deep attention, relax your mind by interposing history or poetry, or something of a lighter nature.

6. The first thing you should understand a little of is grammar; in order to which it will suffice to read first the Kingswood "English Grammar," (which is exceeding short,) and then Bishop Lowth's "Introduction."

7. Next, it would be worth your while to acquire a little knowledge in arithmetic and Dilworth's Arithmetic would give you full as much as you want.

8. You might proceed to geography. But in this I would not advise

you to encumber yourself with many books. You need only master one, Randal's "Geographical Grammar," and then betake yourself to the globes. I believe those of Mr. Adams are the best; to which you may add his little book of Instructions.

9. Logic naturally follows; and I really think it is worth all the rest put together. But here I am at a full stop; for I know no good treatise on the subject in English, except Aldrich's Logic, and that, I am afraid, you cannot understand without an instructer. I shall be glad to give you a little assistance in the short time we have together.

10. As to ethics (or moral philosophy) there is full as much of it as you want in Langbain's "Compendium."

11. In natural philosophy you have a larger field. You may begin with a "Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation." This contains the substance of Ray, Derham, Niewentyt, " Nature Displayed," and all the other celebrated books on the subject. You may add that fine book, Mr. Jones's "Principles of Natural Philosophy." Thence you will easily pass to the Glasgow abridgment of Mr. Hutchinson's Works. The abridgers give not only all his sense, but all his spirit. You may add to these, the beautiful tracts of Lord Forbes; and if you would go a little farther, Mr. Baker's ingenious "Treatise on the Microscope."

12. With any or all of the foregoing studies, you may intermix that of history. Geography and chronology are termed the two eyes of history. Geography has been mentioned before; and I think all you want of chronology may be learned from Marshal's "Chronological Tables."

13. You may begin with Rollin's "Ancient History ;" and afterward read in order, Puffendorf's "Introduction to the History of Europe," the "Concise Church History," Burnet's "History of the Reformation," the "Concise History of England," Clarendon's "History of the Great Rebellion," Neal's "History of the Puritans," his "History of New England," and Solis's "History of the Conquest of Mexico."

14. Whitby's "Compendium of Metaphysics" will introduce you to that science. You may go on with Locke's " Essay on Human Understanding;" Bishop Browne on the "Nature, Procedure, and Limits of Human Understanding ;" and Malebranche's "Search after Truth,"

15. For poetry, you may read Spencer's "Fairy Queen ;" Fairfax's or Hoole's "Godfrey of Bulloign;" select parts of Shakspeare; "Paradise Lost ;" the "Night Thoughts ;" and "Moral and Sacred Poems."

16. You are glad to begin and end with divinity. But I must not expatiate here. I will only recommend to your careful perusal, Bishop Pearson upon the Creed, Mr. Nalson's" Sermons," and the "Christian Library."

This course of study, if you have the resolution to go through it, will, I apprehend, take you up three, four, or five years, according to the degree of your health and of your application. And you will then have knowledge enough for any reasonable Christian. But remember, before all, in all, and above all, your great point is, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. I am, dear Miss L

Your affectionate brother.*

[* The course of study above recommended, was founded on the books then published. From among those which have been since added, Mr. W. himself would, doubtless, have considerably varied it.]

CCIV. To the Rev. Mr. G—

APRIL 2, 1761. REVEREND SIR,-I have no desire to dispute; least of all with one whom I believe to fear God and work righteousness. And I have no time to spare. Yet I think it my duty to write a few lines, with regard to those you sent to Mr. Bennet.

You therein say, "If you sent me the books to inform me of an error which I had publicly advanced, pardon me if I say, I know numbers who call themselves Methodists assert their assurance of salvation at the very time they wallow in sins of the deepest dye." Permit me, sir, to speak freely. I do not doubt the fact. But, 1. Those who are connected with me, do not call themselves Methodists. Others call them by that nickname, and they cannot help it; but I continually warn them, not to pin it upon themselves. 2. We rarely use that ambiguous expression of Christ's righteousness imputed to us." 3. We believe a man may be a real Christian without being "assured of his salvation." 4. We know no man can be assured of salvation while he lives in any sin whatever. 5. The wretches who talk in that manner are neither Methodists nor Moravians, but followers of William Cudworth, James Relly, and their associates, who abhor us as much as they do the Pope; and ten times more than they do the devil. If you oppose these, so do I; and have done privately and publicly for these twenty years.

But you say, "Such as do not profess this doctrine will not be affected by my sermon." Indeed they will; for the world (as you yourself did) lump all that are called Methodists together. Consequently, whatever you then said of Methodists in general, falls on us as well as them; and so we are condemned for those very principles which we totally detest and abhor: a small part of the "Preservative" (had you taken the pains to read it) would have convinced you of this. "Did you send them to convince me of some important truth? I have the New Testament." So have I; and I have read it for above these fifty years; and for near forty with some attention. Yet I will not say, that Mr. Gmay not convince me of some truth, which I never yet learned from it. I want every help; especially from those who strive both to preach and to live the Gospel. Yet certainly I must dissent from you, or you from me, wherever either conceives the other to vary from it. Some of my writings you "have read." But allow me to ask, Did not you read them with much prejudice, or little attention? Otherwise surely you would not have termed them "perplexing." Very few lay obscurity or intricacy to my charge. Those who do not allow them to be true, do not deny them to be plain. And if they believe me to have done any good at all by writing, they suppose it is by this very thing; by speaking on practical and experimental religion more plainly than others have done.

I quite agree, we "neither can be better men nor better Christians, than by continuing members of the Church of England." And not only her doctrines, but many parts of her discipline, I have adhered to at the hazard of my life. If in any point I have since varied thereform, it was not by choice, but necessity. Judge, therefore, if they do well