stedfast, as a beaten anvil to the stroke, for it is the part of a good champion to be flayed alive, and to conquer."

Is it not an extraordinary fact, that in a public institution devoted to the instruction of youth, for the important station of pastors of Christ's Church-holiness of life, a scrupulous attention to the injunctions of the New Testament-and a charity, which induced its possessors to submit to great personal deprivations, should be scoffed at with all the malevolence of the impious, ridiculed with all the buffoonery of the deist, and gravely opposed by those identical men who enjoyed honour, wealth, and ease, that they might have additional opportunities to enforce upon those committed to their charge an attention to their incumbent duties?

Had the university in general, followed their example, instead of persecuting them-they would not so long have been the disgrace of Christianity, and the seat of vice.-To silence the general clamour against their conduct, they proposed the following questions to their friends and to their opponents :

66 1. Whether it does not concern all men of all conditions, to imitate him as much as they can, who went about doing good?

Whether all Christians are not concerned in that command, "While we have time, let us do good to all men." Whether we shall not be more happy hereafter, the more good we do now?

2. Whether we may not try to do good to our acquaintance among the young gentlemen in the university? Particularly, whether we may not endeavour to convince them of the necessity of being Christians, and of being scholars ?

Whether we may not try to convince them of the necessity of method and industry, in order to either learning or virtue ?

Whether we may not try to persuade them to confirm and increase their industry, by communicating as often as they can ?

Whether we may not mention to them the authors whom we conceive to have written best on those subjects ?

Whether we may not assist them as we are able, from time to time, to form resolutions upon what they read in those authors, and to execute them with steadiness and perseverance?

3. May we not try to do good to those who are hungry, naked or sick? If we know any necessitous family, may we not give them a little food, clothes or physic, as they want?

If they can read, may we not give them a Bible, a Common-Prayer Book, or a Whole Duty of Man?

May we not inquire, now and then, how they have used them; explain what they do not understand, and enforce what they do?

May we not enforce upon them the necessity of private prayer, and of frequenting the Church and Sacrament?

May we not contribute what we are able, towards having their children clothed and taught to read ?

4. May we not try to do good to those who are in prison? May we not release such well-disposed persons as remain in prison for small debts?

May we not lend small sums to those who are of any trade, that they may procure themselves tools and materials to work with?

May we not give to them who appear to want it most, a little money, or clothes, or physic ?"

Mr. Samuel Wesley, in a second letter to his brother, adverted to his conduct, and intimated that he was ra

ther too precise; that he might excite prejudices; and that a little relaxation from his strictness might be favourable to his object. This produced a reply, dated November 17, 1731. "Considering the other changes that I remember in myself, I shall not at all wonder if the time comes, when we differ as little in our conclusions as we do now in our premises. In most we seem to agree already; especially as to rising, not keeping much company, and sitting by a fire, which I always do, if any one in the room does, whether at home or abroad. But these are the very things about which others will never agree with me. Had I given up these, or but one of them, rising early, which implies going to bed early, though I never am sleepy now, and keeping so little company, not one man in ten of those who are offended at me, as it is, would ever open their mouth against any of the other particulars. For the sake of these, those are mentioned; the root of the matter lies here-would I but employ a third of my money, and about half my time. as other folks do, smaller matters would be easily overlooked. But I think, Nil tanti est.

"I have often thought of a saying of Dr. Hayward's, when he examined me for priest's orders; 'Do you know what you are about? You are bidding defiance to all mankind. He that would live a Christian priest, ought to know, whether his hand be against every man or no, he must expect every man's hand should be against him.' It is not strange that every man's hand, who is not a Christian, should be against him that endeavors to be so. But is it not hard that even those who are with us should be against us; that a man's enemies, in some degree, should be those of the same household of faith? Yet so it is. From the time that a man sets himself to this business, very many even of 'those who travel the same road, many of those who are before as well as behind him, will lay stumbling blocks

in his way. One blames him for not going fast enough, another for having made no greater progress; another for going too far, which perhaps, strange as it is, is the more common charge of the two. For this comes from people of all sorts; not only infidels, not only half Christians, but some of the best of men are very apt to make this reflection, he lays unnecessary burdens upon himself; he is too precise; he does what God has no where required to be done.' True, he has not required it of those who are perfect; and even as to those who are not, all men are not required to use all means; but every man is required to use those which he finds most useful to himself. And who can tell better than himself, whether he finds them so or no? Who knoweth the things of a man better than the spirit of a man that is in him?

"This being a point of no common concern, I desire to explain myself upon it once for all, and to tell you freely and clearly, those general positions on which I ground all those practices, for which, as you would have seen had you read that paper through, I am generally accused of singularity. 1st. As to the end of my being; I lay it down for a rule, that I cannot be too happy and therefore too holy; and thence I infer that the more steadily I keep my eye upon the prize of our high calling, and the more of my thoughts and words and actions are directly pointed at the attainment of it, the better. 2. As to the instituted means of attaining it, I likewise lay it down for a rule, that I am to use them every time I may. 3. As to prudential means, I believe this rule holds of things indifferent in themselves; whatever I know to do me hurt, that to me is not indifferent, but resolutely to be abstained from: whatever I know to do me good, that to me is not indifferent, but resolutely to be embraced.

"But it will be said, I am whimsical. True, and what then? If by whimsical be meant simply singular, I own

it; if singular without any reason, I deny it with both my hands, and am ready to give a reason to any one that asks me, of every custom wherein I differ from the world. I grant in many single actions I differ unreasonably from others, but not wilfully; no, I shall extremely thank any one who will teach me how to help it.

"As to my being formal; if by that be meant that I am not easy and unaffected enough in my carriage, it is very true; but how shall I help it ?-If by formal be meant that I am serious, this too is very true; but why should I help it? Mirth I grant is very fit for you; but does it follow that it is fit for me? Are the same tempers, any more than the same words and actions fit for all circumstances? If you are to rejoice evermore, because you have put your enemies to flight, am I to do the same while they continually assault me? You are very glad because you are passed from death to life; well but let him be afraid who knows not whether he is to live or die. Whether this be my condition or no, who can tell better than myself? Him who can, whoever he be, I allow to be a proper judge, whether I do well to be generally as serious as I can.”

In April, 1732, the little society was increased by the junction of Messrs. Clayton, Ingham, Broughton, Hervey, and one or two of Mr. C. Wesley's, and his own pupils. During the latter part of Mr. Wesley's residence at Oxford, both he and his brother Charles maintained a close intimacy with Mr. Law. Twice or thrice in the year, they travelled about sixty miles on foot, that they might save the more money for the poor, in order to visit him. Mr. Law once observed to Mr. John Wesley, "You would have a philosophical religion, but there can be no such thing. Religion is the most plain, simple thing in the world. It is only, we love him, because he first loved us." Another time Mr. Law

L