1. That is not their choice. They must either preach irregularly, or not at all. 2. Is such a circumstance of weight to turn the scale against the substance of the Gospel? If it is, if none ought to speak or hear the truth of God, unless in a regular manner, then (to mention but one consequence) there never could have been any reformation from Popery. For here the entire argument for Church-order would have stood in its full force. Suppose one had asked a German nobleman to hear Martin Luther preach, might not his priest have said, (without debating, whether he preached the truth or not,) "My Lord, in every nation there must be some settled order of government, ecclesiastical, and civil. There is an ecclesiastical order established in Germany. You are born under this establishment. Your ancestors supported it, and your very rank and station constitute you a formal and eminent guardian of it, How then can it consist with the duty arising from all these, to give encouragement, countenance, and support, to principles and practices that are a direct renunciation of the established constitution ?" Had the force of this reasoning been allowed, what had become of the Reformation?

Yet it was right. Though it really was a subversion of the whole ecclesiastical constitution, with regard to doctrine as well as discipline. Whereas, this is no such thing. The doctrine of the established Church, which is far the most essential part of her constitution, these preachers manifestly confirm, in opposition to those who subvert it. And it is the opposition made to them by those subverters, which constrains them, in some respects, to deviate from her discipline, to which, in all others, they conform for conscience. what pity, that any who preach the same doctrine, and whom those subverters have not yet been able to thrust out, should join with them against their brethren in the common faith, and fellow-witnesses of the common salvation!

I am, dear Sir, your willing Servant for Christ's sake,
JOHN WESLEY,

TO THE REV. MR. FURLEY. ON A GOOD STYLE.

DEAR SIR,

Liverpool, July 15, 1764.

I HAVE had many thoughts since we parted, on the subject of our late conversation. I send you them just as they occur. "What is it that constitutes a good Style 2" Perspicuity, purity, propriety, strength, and easiness, joined together. When any one of these is wanting, it is not a good style. Dr. Middleton's style wants easiness. It is stiff to a high degree. And stiffness in writing is full as great a fault as stiffness in behaviour. It is a blemish hardly to be excused, much less to be imitated. He is pedantic. "It is pedantry," says the great Lord Boyle, " to use a hard word, where an easier will serve." Now this the Doctor continually does, and that of set purpose. His style is abundantly too artificial: artis est celare artem; but his art glares in every sentence. He continually says, "Observe how finely I speak." Whereas a good speaker seems to forget he speaks at all. His full, round curls, naturally put one in mind of Sir Cloudesly Shovel's peruke, that "eternal buckle takes in Parian stone." Yet this very fault may appear a beauty to you, because you are apt to halt on the same foot. There is a stiffness both in your carriage and speech, and something of it in your very familiarity. But for this very reason, you should be jealous of yourself, and guard against your natural infirmity. If you imitate any writers, let it be South, Atterbury, or Swift, in whom all the properties of a good writer meet. I was myself once much fonder of Prior than Pope: as I did not then know that stiffness was a fault. But what in all Prior can equal, for beauty of style, some of the first lines that Pope ever published? "Poets themselves must die, like those they sung, Deaf the prais'd ear, and mute the tuneful tongue, Ev'n he whose heart now melts in tender lays, Shall shortly want the gen'rous tear he pays. Then from his eyes thy much-lov'd form shall part; And the last pang shall tear thee from his heart :

Life's idle business at one gasp be o'er,

The Muse forgot, and thou belov'd no more." Here is style! How clear; how pure, proper, strong, and yet how amazingly easy! This crowns all: no stiffness, no hard words: no apparent art, no affectation: all is natural, and therefore consummately beautiful. Go thou and write likewise. As for me, I never think of my style at all, but just set down the words that come first. Only when I transcribe any thing for the press, then I think it my duty to see that every phrase be clear, pure, and proper. Conciseness (which is now as it were natural to me) brings quantum sufficit of strength. If, after all, I observe any stiff expression, I throw it out, neck and shoulders.

Clearness in particular is necessary for you and me: because we are to instruct people of the lowest understanding. Therefore, we above all, if we think with the wise, yet must speak with the vulgar. We should constantly use the most common, little, easy words, (so they are pure and proper,) which our language affords. When I had been a member of the University about ten years, I wrote and talked much as you do now. But when I talked to plain people in the castle, or the town, I observed they gaped and stared. This quickly obliged me to alter my style, and adopt the language of those I spoke to. And yet there is a dignity in this simplicity, which is not disagreeable to those of the highest rank.

I advise you sacredly to abstain from reading any stiff writer. A by-stander sees more than those that play the game. Your style is much hurt already. Indeed something might be said, if you were a learned Infidel, writing for money or reputation. But that is not the case: you are a Christian Minister, speaking and writing to save souls. Have this end always in your eye, and you will never designedly use any hard word. Use all the sense, learning, and time you have: forgetting yourself, and remembering only those are the souls for whom Christ died; heirs of a happy, or miserable eternity!

I am your affectionate Friend and Brother,
J. WESLEY.

TO THE REV. MR. VENN.-ON UNION AMONG GOSPEL MINISTERS.

REV. AND DEAR SIR,

Birmingham, June 22, 1765.

HAVING at length a few hours to spare, I sit down to answer your last, which was particularly acceptable to me, because it was written with so great openness. I shall write with the same. And herein you and I are just fit to converse together, because we both like to speak bluntly and plainly, without going a great way round about. I shall likewise take this opportunity of explaining myself on some other heads. I want you to understand me inside and out. Then I say, "Sic sum: Si placeo, utere."

Were I allowed to boast myself a little, I would say, I want no man living, I mean, none but those who are now connected with me, and who bless God for that connexion. With these I am able to go through every part of the work, to which I am called. Yet I have laboured after union with all whom I believe to be united with Christ. I have sought it again and again; but in vain. They were resolved to stand aloof. And when one and another sincere Minister of Christ has been inclined to come nearer to me, others have diligently kept them off, as though thereby they did God service.

To this poor end the doctrine of Perfection has been brought in head and shoulders. And when such concessions were made as would abundantly satisfy any fair and candid man, they were no nearer: rather farther off: for they had no desire to be satisfied. To make this dear breach wider and wider, stories were carefully gleaned up, improved, yea, invented and retailed, both concerning me and "the perfect ones." And when any thing very bad has come to hand, some have rejoiced as though they had found great spoils.

By this means chiefly, the distance between you and me, has increased ever since you came to Huddersfield, and perhaps it has not been lessened by that honest, well-mean

66

ing man, Mr. Burnet, and by others, who have talked largely of my dogmaticalness, love of power, errors, and irregularities. My dogmaticalness is neither more nor less than a custom of coming to the point at once," and telling my mind flatly and plainly, without any preface or ceremony. I could indeed premise something of my own imbecility, littleness of judgment, and the like: but, First, I have no time to lose. I must despatch the matter as soon as possible. Secondly, I do not think it frank or ingenuous. I think these prefaces are mere artifice.

The power I have I never sought. It was the undesired, unexpected result of the work God was pleased to work 'by me. I have a thousand times sought to devolve it on others: but as yet I cannot. I therefore suffer it till I can find any to ease me of my burden.

If any one will convince me of my errors, I will heartily thank him. I believe all the Bible, as far as I understand it, and am ready to be convinced. If I am a heretic, I became such by reading the Bible. All my notions I drew from thence and with little help from men, unless in the single point of Justification by Faith. But I impose my notions upon none: I will be bold to say, there is no man living farther from it. I make no opinion the term of union with any man: I think and let think. What I want, is holiness of heart and life. They who have this, are my brother, sister, and mother.

"But you hold Perfection." True: that is, loving God with all our heart, and serving him with all our strength. I teach nothing more, nothing less, than this. And whatever infirmity, defect, avoua, is consistent with this, any man may teach, and I shall not contradict him.

As to irregularity, I hope none of those who cause it, do then complain of it. Will they throw a man into the dirt, and beat him because he is dirty? Of all men living, those clergymen ought not to complain, who believe I preach the gospel, (as to the substance of it.) If they do not ask me to preach in their churches, they are accountable for my preaching in the fields.