Part 101

I HAVE read Mr. _B._’s letter, and think it exceedingly pretty; the stile is easy and flowing, the language soft and affecting, the sentiments he expresses, in regard to his friend and yourself, very beautiful. But what is all this to the purpose? Or how can this convince you, that you ought to give up those means of grace which you have found so extremely beneficial to your soul, in order to make a proper wife for Mr. _C._? ’Tis true, there are several assertions in Mr. _B._’s letter, designed to shew the reasonableness of your making the promise; but asserting and proving are two things. Whatever has the appearance of argument in this letter may, I imagine, be reduced to these heads: _1st._ That it is absolutely wrong for any member of the church of _England_ to attend the meetings of separatists. _2dly._ That in the church of _England_, a soul may find every thing necessary for its attaining the highest degrees of faith and holiness. _3dly._ That Mr. _W._ is a separatist: and _4thly._ That your having any acquaintance with him, will hurt Mr. _C._ both in his temporal interest, and in his character as a minister.――The opinion I had conceived of Mr. _B._ was very high, I imagined him actuated by that spirit of _universal love_, which is the first and ruling principle of every soul that is born of God; and I make no doubt but this is his _real_ character: however (in this affair) he may _seem_ to incline to a _partial selfish_ orthodoxy. *Could the church of _England_ be proved to be the _only church_ of _Christ_, there might be some reason for the cry of schism, which we hear so much of: but what is she, more than one of the most unexceptionable of those many divisions into which the universal church is broken? And therefore a separation from her, though causeless, or from mistaken motives, cannot properly be called making a schism in the _church_ of _Christ_. For my part (but I speak it with submission to Mr. _B._’s judgment) I apprehend, that the only _real_ and dangerous schism is the want of that spirit of love, which makes us rejoice in whatever is good and excellent in people of all denominations, and ready to believe good even of those who most differ from _us_ in ceremonies and opinion. And why a person of this spirit (suppose one in communion with the church of _England_) may not be allowed sometimes to hear a minister among the _Presbyterians_, or any other sect, if they find this minister’s preaching blest to their souls, I cannot imagine. What St. _Paul_ says in regard to giving offence to weak brethren, is often quoted to prove what it has nothing to do with; for St. _Paul_ surely does not mean, that he neglected those things which were profitable to _his soul_, for fear of giving offence to the weak; but that he refrained from outward things (such as making difference in meats, &c.) which he, as strong in faith, knew to be wholly indifferent, lest his example should tempt those who were weak to do things by which their consciences might be wounded.――As to Mr. _B._’s second argument, _in one sense_ of it, I heartily agree with him: the homilies, the articles, and liturgy of the church of _England_, doubtless contain all the doctrines necessary to faith and holiness. But, alas, how little are these doctrines regarded either in preaching or practice, by the generality of her ministers! Let any one who has the least degree of seriousness, look round the churches of _London_. Will he not see the people for the most part repeating an excellent set of prayers, just as a parrot repeats a song; and the minister giving forth doctrines from the pulpit, as directly contrary to these prayers as darkness is to light? This is so plain a matter of fact, that it cannot be contradicted; and it is _as_ notorious, that whenever any minister in the church of _England_ begins to preach her _real_ doctrines, and live up to her precepts, he is immediately called a _Methodist_. This name is given to him as a reproach. But as it comes upon him for speaking the truth, it is in fact a glory. Ever since Christ was upon the earth, _real_ Christians have had a nick-name: but surely no one who is sincerely bent to follow him can regard this: I doubt not but Mr. _B._ himself is called a _Methodist_. But I now come to Mr. _B._’s third argument, that most dreadful charge laid against Mr. _W._ that _he is a separatist_. This charge has been repeated over and over again, but has never yet been clearly proved. If four walls, with a steeple and bells, was the church of _England_, Mr. _W._ might with some shadow of reason be said to have separated from it, because he seldom preaches in these places: but _this_ is no fault of his, for he will gladly preach in any of them, when their respective ministers will let him. And he was never denied preaching in what is called a church, till he strongly insisted on _that doctrine_ for which the martyrs of the reformation laid down their lives, and which is the very fundamental doctrine of the church of _England_, _justification by faith_. Any one who would read Mr. _W._’s _Appeals_ with a sincere and impartial spirit, would I believe be fully convinced, that this charge against him could not stand.――As to the hurt your being acquainted with Mr. _W._ might do to Mr. _C._ in his temporal interest, it depends entirely upon himself. If he preaches to his people _smooth_ things, and prophesies _deceits_; if he joins with them in their _innocent amusements_, which _lull_ souls asleep, and keeps them in an utter ignorance of their _fall_ and their _redemption_, till they awake in a miserable eternity: go _you_ where you will, not a dog will move its tongue against him, nor will the generosity of his parishioners be in the least abated towards him; and all they say of him will _only_ be, _poor man_! what pity that such a good-natured good sort of a man should have such a sad wife. But do I think Mr. _C._ will act in this manner? _No_, certainly I _do not_. I verily believe, from what you yourself have said of him, that he intends to prove himself a true minister of Christ, that he will _boldly_ and _earnestly_ call sinners to repentance, and that his life and conversation will be wholly agreeable to his preaching. And if this is the case, though you were never to see Mr. _W._ again, Mr. _C._ would be called a _Methodist_, the greatest part of his parishioners would cry out against him, and in all probability their generosity towards him would greatly decrease. So that consider the affair in what light you will, your being acquainted with Mr. _W._ cannot materially hurt Mr. _C._ And as to the objection of this acquaintance casting a reproach on your husband’s ministry, ’tis quite _needless_; for it is not to be supposed, if Mr. _C._ be the man you can approve of for a husband, that you will leave his church when he himself preaches, to go after any other minister whatever. And whatever you may do at this time at proper opportunities, will I doubt not be so guided by _Christian_ prudence, that he, as a good and pious man, cannot reasonably object to it. But at present you and Mr. _C._ know very little of each other, and he certainly had no right to propose such terms as these to you, till he had given you frequent opportunities of judging, whether his heart and sentiments were such as you could entirely approve of. For my part, by the little I can judge in this affair, I believe him to be a good and a sincere man, and I heartily wish him happy, and _that with you_, if it can be brought about without your doing any thing to wound your conscience. In the mean time, whether this affair is ever concluded upon or not, frequent conversing together in the spirit of Christianity, may be a blessing to both. And how is it possible for you to give a direct answer to a man, till you are in some measure acquainted with him, and can judge of his temper and dispositions? I was quite delighted with the softness and affection for you with which your pappa mentioned this affair to me last night. If you say any thing of my writing to you, give my respects to him and your mamma, with love to Miss _B._ and believe me