To James Clark Date: CASTLEBAR July 3, 1756. REVEREND SIR, I am obliged to you for the openness and candor with which you write, and will endeavor to follow the pattern which you have set me. I did not know of John Langston's affair till you gave me an account of it. He is no preacher allowed of by me; I do not believe that God ever called him to it; neither do I approve his conduct with regard to you: I fear he is, or at least was, a real enthusiast. The same character, I fear, may be justly given to poor Mr. Bermingham. I sent you that sermon with no particular view, but as a testimony of love to a fellow laborer in the gospel. From the text of that sermon I do not infer that Christians should not inquire into each other's opinions. Indeed, from the text I infer nothing; I use it to illustrate, not to prove. I am very sensible 'Jehu had more regard to State policy than to religion' ; and have no objection to the very fair explication you have made of his words. Accordingly I say , 'I do not mean what Jehu implied therein, but what a follower of Christ should understand by it when he proposes it to any of his brethren': of these only I speak. My general proposition, you may please to remember, was this : 'All the children of God may unite in love, notwithstanding their differences in opinion or modes of worship.' From this persuasion, when I meet with any whom I have reason to believe to be children of God, I do not ask of him (never at our first meeting, seldom till we are better acquainted), 'Do you agree with me in opinion or modes of worship, particularly with regard to Church Government, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper' I let these stand by till we begin to know and confirm our love to each other. Then may come a more convenient season for controversy. My only question at present is, 'Is thy heart fight with my heart, c.'

At present I say, 'Keep your own opinion' ; I mine. I do not desire you to dispute these points. Whether we shall dispute them hereafter is another question; perhaps we may, perhaps we may not. This will depend on a great variety of circumstances particularly on a probability of success; for I am determined never to dispute at all if I have no hopes of convincing my opponent. As to my own judgment, I still believe 'the Episcopal form of Church government to be both scriptural and apostolical': I mean, well agreeing with the practice and writings of the Apostles. But that it is prescribed in Scripture I do not believe. This opinion (which I once heartily espoused) I have been heartily ashamed of ever since I read Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicon. See letters of July 16, 1755, and April 10, 1761. I think he has unanswerably proved that neither Christ or His Apostles prescribed any particular form of Church government, and that the plea for the divine right of Episcopacy was never heard of in the primitive Church. But were it otherwise, I would still call these 'smaller matters than the love of God and mankind' . And could any man answer these questions, 'Dost thou believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, God over all, blessed for evermore' (which, indeed, no Arian, semi-Arian, or Socinian can do); 'Is God the center of thy soul Art thou more afraid of offending God than of death or hell' (which no wicked man can possibly do, none that is not a real child of God); if, I say, any man could answer these questions in the affirmative, I would gladly give him my hand. This is certainly a principle held by those that are in derision called Methodist, and to whom a Popish priest in Dublin gave the still more unmeaning title of Swaddlers. They all desire to be of a catholic spirit; meaning thereby, not an indifference to all opinions, not an indifference as to modes of worship: this they know to be quite another thing. 'Love, they judge, alone gives a rifle to this character. Catholic love k a catholic spirit.'

As to heresy and schism, I cannot find one text in Scripture where they are taken in the modern sense. I remember no one scripture where heresy signifies error in opinion, whether fundamental or not; nor any where schism signifies separation from the Church, either with or without cause. I wish, sir, you would reconsider this point, and review the scriptures where these terms occur. Yet I would take some pains to recover a man from error and reconcile him to our Church: I mean the Church of England; from which I do not separate yet, and probably never shall. The little church, in the vulgar sense, which I occasionally mentioned at Holymount is that wherein I read prayers, preach, and administer the sacrament every Sunday when I am in London. West Street. But I would take much more pains to recover a man from sin. A man who lives and dies in error or in dissent from our Church may yet be saved; but a man who lives and dies in sin must perish. O sir, let us bend our main force against this, against all sin, both in ourselves and those that hear us! I would to God we could a agree in opinion and outward worship. But if that cannot be, may we not agree in holiness May we not all agree in being holy, as He that has called us is holy in heart and conversation This h the great desire of, reverend sir, Yours c. PS. Perhaps I have not spoke distinctly enough on one point. Orthodoxy, I say, or right opinion, is but a slender part of religion at best, and sometimes no part at all. I mean, if a man be a child of God, holy in heart and life, his right opinions are but the small part of his religion: if a man be a child of the devil, his right opinions are no part of religion, they cannot be; for he that does the works of the devil has no religion at all. This postscript and the lines in brackets on page 181 were not given in the Arminian Magazine, 1779, 598-601. See letter of Sept. 18, sect. 7.