true or false; because I cannot find it is ever so taken in Scripture. The first time I read the term there, is, 1 Cor. i. 10. I met with it again, chap. xi. 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, chap. xii. 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 be meant those inward animosities which occasioned heresies, that is, outward divisions and parties. So that while one said, I am of Paul; another, 1 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 any thing 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 1"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 the more proselytes" to genuine, scriptural Christianity. IfI may prevail upon the more, to love God and their neighbour, and to walk 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 humour them as to dispute with them. But if you do, they will out-face and out-lung you, and at the end you will be where you were at the beginning.”

I have now, Sir, humoured you so far 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 any thing? Is not an old man's motto, Non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris? 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 others, 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 Sir, 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,

J.W.

FROM MR. T. ADAMS TO MR. J. WESLEY.*

REV. SIR,

ON LEAVING THE CHURCH.

Wintringham, Oct. 10, 1755. AS you are pleased to desire my opinion of a matter which is, and is judged by yourself to be, of very great

* This Letter is inserted in order to elucidate Mr. Wesley's Answer.

importance, "A formal separation of the Methodists from the Church of England;" I shall make no apology for giving it to you in as explicit, though short, a manner as I -can, so far as relates to yourself, and the difficulties you are under about it.

As you are not satisfied in your conscience of the lawfulness of a separation in form; but, on the contrary, have advanced many reasons against it, which seem weighty to yourself, and at the same time judge it to be inexpedient; methinks your way is plain before you: separation from an establishment, without a clear and full conviction of the lawfulness, expedience, and absolute necessity, of it, being utterly unlawful. And if any considerable number of the Methodists should persist in carrying the design of a separation into execution, you and others, your present scruples subsisting, will be obliged in conscience to disavow, and declare openly against it. What confusion among yourselves, and what detriment to religion in general, would follow upon this? What occasion of triumph it will give to your opposers, and what a contradiction it is to your avowed design of restoring practical, vital religion, especially in the Church of England, may easily be discerned.

Be pleased, Sir, to keep your eye and heart steadily fixed upon this single point, and let no bye-respects, no personal considerations, no retrospects, nor concern for Methodism in its present state, influence you in your determination, viz. What is the one conscionable, striptural way of extricating yourself from your present embarrassments? Which, all things considered, must be owned to be very great, and should be a warning to all how they venture upon a revolt from the authority and standing rules of the Church to which they belong. I fear, Sir, that your saying you do not appoint, but only approve of the lay-preachers, from a persuasion of their call and fitness, savours of disingenuity. Where is the difference? Under whose sanction do they act? Would they generally think their call a sufficient warrant for commencing preachers, or be received in that capacity by your people, without your approbation, tacit,

or express? And what is their preaching upon this call, but a manifest breach upon the order of the Church, and an inlet to confusion? Which, in all probability, will follow upon your death; and, if 1 mistake not, you are upon the point of knowing by your own experience.

Upon the whole, therefore, it is humbly submitted to your most serious consideration, Whether the separation is not wide enough already, particularly in the instance of unordained persons preaching, and gathering societies to themselves wherever they can; and whether all the Methodists might not serve the interests of Christ better, as witnesses and examples of a living faith, and expect a greater blessing from the God of order upon their talents, gifts, and graces, whatever they are, by returning to a closer union with the Church, and repairing the breach they have made, than by making it still wider, and separating, what they think, the gospel-leaven from the lump?

I pray God direct you to judge and act in this, and every thing else, for the good of his church, and your own future peace; and am, Rev. dear Sir,

Your unworthy Brother and Servant,

T.A.

MR. WESLEY'S ANSWER TO MR. ADAMS.

REV. SIR,

London, October 31, 1755.

ONE good effect, at least, has arisen already, from the moving of the present question. It has been the occasion of my having some little acquaintance with Mr. Walker and you, which, I doubt not, would be enlarged, were it not for what you probably think to be Christian (I think to be worldly) prudence.

You have much obliged me by your clear and friendly answer; with the main of which I fully agree: for I am still in my former sentiment, "We will not go out : if we are thrust out, well." And of the same judgment are, I believe, at least nineteen in twenty of our preachers, and