IN a former treatise I declared, in the plainest manner I could, both
my principles and practice; and answered some of the most important,
as well as the most common objections to each. But I have not yet
delivered my own soul. I believe it is still incumbent upon me to
answer other objections, particularly such as have been urged by those
who are esteemed religious or reasonable men.
These partly relate to the _doctrines_ I teach, partly to my _manner_
of teaching them, and partly to the _effects_ which are supposed to
follow from teaching these doctrines in this manner.
I. 1. I will briefly mention what those doctrines are, before I
consider the objections against them. Now all I teach respects either
the nature and condition of _justification_, the nature and condition
of _salvation_, the nature of justifying and saving _faith_, or the
_Author_ of faith and salvation.
2. First, The nature of justification. It sometimes means, our
acquittal at the last day¹. But this is altogether out of the present
question: that justification whereof our articles and homilies
speak, meaning present forgiveness, pardon of sins, and consequently
acceptance with God: who therein, _declares his righteousness_ or mercy,
by or _for the remission of the sins that are past_, saying, _I will be
merciful to thy unrighteousness, and thine iniquities I will remember
no more_.²
¹ Matthew xii. 37.
² Romans iii. 25.
I believe, the condition of this, is faith¹: I mean, not only, that
without faith, we cannot be justified; but also, that as soon as any
one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.
¹ Romans iv. 5. &c.
Good works follow this faith¹, but cannot go before it: much less
can sanctification, which implies, a continued course of good works,
springing from holiness of heart. *But it is allowed, that entire
sanctification goes before our justification at the last day.²
¹ Luke vi. 43.
² Hebrews xii. 14.
*It is allowed also, that repentance¹ and _fruits meet for repentance_²,
go before faith. Repentance _absolutely must_ go before faith: fruits
meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance, I mean, conviction
of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment:
and by _fruits meet for repentance_, forgiving our brother³, ceasing
from evil⁴, doing good, using the ordinances of God⁵, and in general
obeying him according to the measure of grace which we have received⁶.
But these, I cannot as yet, term _good works_; because they do not
spring from faith and the love of God.
¹ Mark i. 15.
² Matthew iii. 8.
³ Matthew vi. 14, 15.
⁴ Luke iii. 4, 9. &c.
⁵ Matthew vii. 7.
⁶ Matthew xxv. 29.
3. By salvation I mean, not barely, according to the vulgar notion,
deliverance from hell, or going to heaven: but a present deliverance
from sin, a restoration of the soul to its primitive health, its
original purity; a recovery of the divine nature; the renewal of our
souls after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness, in
justice, mercy, and truth. This implies all holy and heavenly tempers,
and by consequence all holiness of conversation.
Now, if by salvation we mean, a present salvation from sin, we cannot
say, holiness is the condition of it. For it is the thing itself.
Salvation, in this sense, and holiness are synonymous terms. We must
therefore say, _We are saved by faith_. Faith is the sole condition
of this salvation. For without faith we cannot be thus saved. But
whosoever believeth, is saved already.
*Without faith we cannot be thus saved. For we cannot rightly serve God,
unless we love him. And we cannot love him, unless we know him; neither
can we know God, unless by faith. Therefore _salvation by faith_, is
only in other words, the love of God by the knowledge of God: or, the
recovery of the image of God, by a true spiritual acquaintance with him.
4. Faith, in general, is, a divine, supernatural ἔλεγχος¹ of things
not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past,
future or spiritual. _Justifying faith_ implies, not only a divine
ἔλεγχος, that God _was in_ Christ, _reconciling the world unto himself_,
but a sure trust and confidence, that Christ died for _my_ sins, that
he loved _me_ and gave himself for _me_. And the moment a penitent
sinner believes this, God pardons and absolves him.
¹ Evidence, or Conviction.
And as soon as his pardon or justification is witnessed to him by the
Holy Ghost, he is saved. He loves God and all mankind. He has _the
mind that was in_ Christ, and power to _walk as he also walked_. From
that time (unless he make shipwreck of the faith) salvation gradually
increases in his soul. For _so is the kingdom of God, as if a man
should cast seed into the ground.――And it springeth up, first the blade,
then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear._
5. The first sowing of this seed, I cannot conceive to be other than
instantaneous: whether I consider experience, or the word of God, or
the very nature of the thing――however I contend not for a circumstance,
but the substance; if you can attain it another way, do. Only see that
you do attain it; for if you fall short, you perish everlastingly.
*This beginning of that vast, inward change, is usually termed _The
new birth_. Baptism is the outward sign of this inward grace, which is
supposed by our church, to be given with, and through that sign to all
infants, and to those of riper years, if they repent and believe the
gospel. But how extremely idle are the common disputes on this head?
I tell a sinner, “You must be born again.” “No, say you, he was born
again in baptism. Therefore he cannot be born again now.” Alas! What
trifling is this? What if he was _then_ a child of God? He is _now_
manifestly a child of the devil. For the works of his father he doth.
Therefore do not play upon words. He _must_ go through an entire change
of heart. In one not yet baptized, you yourself would call that change,
_the new birth_. In him, call it what you will; but remember mean time,
that if either he or you die without it, your baptism will be so far
from profiting you, that it will greatly increase your damnation.
6. The author of faith and salvation is God alone. It is he that works
in us both to will and to do. He is the sole giver of every good gift,
and the sole author of every good work. There is no more of power than
of merit in man; but as all merit is in the Son of God, in what he has
done and suffered for us, so all power is in the Spirit of God. And
therefore every man, in order to believe unto salvation, must receive
the Holy Ghost. This is essentially necessary to every Christian, not
in order to his working miracles, but in order to faith, peace, joy,
and love, the ordinary fruits of the Spirit.
Although no man on earth can explain the _particular manner_, wherein
the Spirit of God works on the soul, yet whosoever has these fruits,
cannot but know and _feel_ that God has wrought them in his heart.
Sometimes, he acts more particularly on the understanding, opening or
_inlightening_ it, (as the scripture speaks) and _revealing_, unveiling,
discovering to us _the deep things of God_.
Sometimes he acts on the wills and affections of men; withdrawing them
from evil, inclining them to good, _inspiring_, (breathing as it were)
good thoughts into them: so it has frequently been exprest, by an easy,
natural metaphor, strictly analogous to רוח, πνεῦμα, _spiritus_, and
the words used in most modern tongues also, to denote the third person
in the ever-blessed Trinity. But however it be exprest, it is certain,
all true faith, and the whole work of salvation, every good thought,
word and work, is altogether by the operation of _the Spirit of God_.
II. 1. I come now to consider the principal objections, which have
lately been made against these doctrines.
I know nothing material which has been objected, as to the nature of
justification: but many persons seem to be very confused, in their
thoughts, concerning it, and speak as if they had never heard of any
justification, antecedent to that of the last day. To clear up this,
there needs only a closer inspection of our articles and homilies;
wherein justification is always taken, for the present remission of
our sins.
But many are the objections which have been warmly urged, against the
condition of justification, faith alone: particularly in two treatises,
the former intitled, _The notions of the Methodists_ fully _disproved_:
the second, _The notions of the Methodists_ farther _disproved_.
In both of which it is vehemently _affirmed_, 1. That this is not a
scriptural doctrine. 2. That it is not the doctrine of the church of
_England_.
It will not be needful to name the former of these any more; seeing
there is neither one text produced therein, to prove this doctrine
unscriptural, nor one sentence from the articles or homilies, to prove
it contrary to the doctrine of the church. But so much of the latter
as relates to the merits of the _cause_, I will endeavour to consider
calmly. As to what is _personal_, I leave it as it is. _God be merciful
to me, a sinner!_
2. To prove this doctrine unscriptural, That “Faith alone is the
condition of justification,” you alledge, That “Sanctification,
according to scripture, must go before it:” To evince which, you
quote the following texts, which I leave as I find them: _Go, disciple
all nations――teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have
commanded them._¹ _He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved._²
_Preach repentance and remission of sins._³ _Repent and be baptized
every one of you, for the remission of sins._⁴ _Repent and be converted,
that your sins may be blotted out._⁵ _By one offering he hath perfected
for ever them that are sanctified._⁶ You add, “St. _Paul_ taught
_Repentance toward God, and faith toward our_ Lord Jesus Christ⁷;
and calls _Repentance from dead works, and faith toward God, first
principles_.⁸”
¹ _Matthew xxviii. 19, 20._
² _Mark xvi. 16._
³ _Luke xxiv. 47._
⁴ _Acts ii. 38._
⁵ ♦_Acts iii. 19._
⁶ _Hebrews x. 14._
⁷ _Acts xx. 21._
⁸ _Hebrews vi. 1._
♦ “C.” replaced with “Acts”
You subjoin, “_But ye are washed_, says he, _but ye are sanctified,
but ye are justified_. By _washed_ is meant their baptism; and by
their baptism is meant, first their sanctification, and then their
justification.” This is a flat begging the question; you take for
granted, the very point which you ought to prove. “St. _Peter_ also,
you say, affirms, That _baptism doth save us_ or justify us.” Again,
you beg the question: you take for granted what I utterly deny, viz.
That _save_ and _justify_ are here synonymous terms. ’Till this is
proved, you can draw no inference at all; for you have no foundation
whereon to build.
I conceive these and all the scriptures which can be quoted to prove
sanctification antecedent to justification, (if they do not relate to
our final justification) prove only (what I have never denied) that
repentance, or conviction of sin, and fruits meet for repentance,
precede that faith, whereby we are justified: but by no means, that the
love of God, or any branch of true holiness, must or can precede faith.
3. It is objected, Secondly, That justification by faith alone, is not
the doctrine of the church of _England_.
“You believe, says the writer above-mentioned, that no good work can
be previous to justification, nor consequently a condition of it. But
God be praised, our church has no where delivered such _abominable_
doctrine.” _Page 14._
“The clergy contend for inward holiness, as previous to the first
justification――this is the doctrine they universally inculcate, and
which you cannot oppose without contradicting the doctrine of our
church.” _Page 26._
“All your strongest persuasives to the love of God, will not blanch
over the deformity of that doctrine, that men may be justified――by
faith alone――Unless you publicly recant this _horrid_ doctrine, your
faith is vain.” _Page 27._
“If you will vouchsafe to purge out this _venomous_ part of your
principles, in which the _wide, essential, fundamental, irreconcileable
difference_, as you very justly term it, mainly consists, then there
will be found so far no disagreement between you and the clergy of the
church of _England_.” _ibid._
4. In order to be clearly and fully satisfied, what the doctrine of the
church of _England_ is, (as it stands opposite to the doctrine of the
_Antinomians_, on the one hand, and to that of _justification by works_
on the other) I will simply set down what occurs on this head, either
in her Liturgy, Articles or Homilies.
“Spare thou them, O God, which _confess their faults_: restore thou
them that are _penitent_, according to thy promises declared unto
mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord.”
“He pardoneth and absolveth all them that _truly repent_ and
_unfeignedly believe_ his holy gospel.”
“Almighty God, who dost forgive the sins of them that are _penitent_,
create and make in us new and contrite hearts; that we _worthily
lamenting our sins_ and _acknowledging our wretchedness_, may obtain of
thee perfect remission and forgiveness, thro’ Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Collect for _Ash-Wednesday_.
“Almighty God――hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with
_hearty repentance and true faith_ turn unto him.” _Communion office._
“Our Lord Jesus Christ hath left power to absolve all sinners who
_truly repent_ and _believe_ in him.” _Visitation of the sick._
“Give him unfeigned _repentance_ and stedfast _faith_, that his sins
may be blotted out.” _ibid._
“He is a merciful receiver of all true, _penitent_ sinners, and is
ready to pardon us, if we come unto him with _faithful repentance_.”
_Commination office._
Infants indeed our church supposes to be justified in baptism, altho’
they cannot then either _believe_ or _repent_. But she expresly
requires both _repentance_ and _faith_, in those who come to be
baptized when they are of riper years.
*As earnestly therefore as our church inculcates justification by
faith alone, she nevertheless supposes _repentance_ to be previous to
faith, and _fruits meet for repentance_: yea, and universal holiness
to be previous to final justification, as evidently appears from the
following words:
*“Let us beseech him――that the rest of our life may be pure and holy,
so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy.” _Absolution._
“May we seriously apply our hearts to that holy and heavenly wisdom
here, which may in the end bring us to life everlasting.” _Visitation
of the sick._
“Raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness,――that
at the last day we may be found acceptable in thy sight.” _Burial
office._
“If we from henceforth walk in his ways,――seeking always his glory,
Christ will set us on his right hand.” _Commination office._
5. We come next to the articles of our church: the former part of the
ninth runs thus:
_Of Original or Birth-Sin._
“Original sin――is the fault and corruption of the nature of every
man――whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is
of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always
contrary to the spirit: and therefore in every person born into this
world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.”
ARTICLE X. _Of Free-Will._
“The condition of man after the fall of _Adam_ is such, that he cannot
turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to
faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works,
pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ
preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when
we have that good will.”
ARTICLE XI. _Of the Justification of Man._
“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or
deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only, is a most
wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is
expressed in the homily of justification.”
I believe this article relates to the _meritorious cause_ of
justification, rather than to the _condition_ of it. On this therefore
I do not build any thing concerning it, but on those that follow.
ARTICLE XII. _Of Good Works._
“Albeit that good works which are the fruits of faith and follow
after justification, cannot put away our sins――yet are they pleasing
and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a
true and lively faith: insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as
evidently known, as a tree may be known by the fruit.”
We are taught here, 1. That _good works_ in general, _follow after_
justification. 2. That they _spring out of_ a true and lively _faith_,
that faith whereby we are justified: 3. That true, justifying faith may
be as evidently known by them, as a tree discerned by the fruit.
Does it not follow, that the supposing any _good work_ to _go before_
justification, is full as absurd as the supposing an apple or any other
fruit to grow before the tree?
But let us hear the church, speaking yet more plainly.
ARTICLE XIII. _Of Works done before Justification._
“Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his
Spirit, (_i. e._ before justification, as the title expresses it) are
not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesu
Christ――Yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and
commanded them to be done, we doubt not they have the nature of sin.”
Now, if all works done before justification, have the nature of sin,
(both because they spring not of faith in Christ, and because they are
not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done) what becomes
of sanctification previous to justification? It is utterly excluded:
seeing whatever is previous to justification, is not good or holy, but
evil and sinful.
*Altho’ therefore our church does frequently assert, that we ought to
repent and bring forth fruits meet for repentance, if ever we would
attain to that faith, whereby alone we are justified: yet she never
asserts (and here the hinge of the question turns) that these are
_good works_, so long as they are previous to justification. Nay she
expressly asserts the direct contrary, viz. That they have all the
nature of sin. So that this “Horrid, scandalous, wicked, abominable,
venomous, blasphemous doctrine,” is nevertheless the doctrine of the
church of _England_.
6. It remains, to consider what occurs in the homilies, first with
regard to the _meritorious cause_ of our justification, agreeable to
the 11th, and then with regard to the _condition_ of it, agreeable to
the 12th and 13th articles.
“These things must go together in our justification; upon God’s part,
his great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, the satisfaction of
God’s justice; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits
of Jesus Christ.” _Homily on salvation, part I._
“So that the grace of God doth not shut ♦out the justice (or
righteousness) of God in our justification; but only shutteth out the
righteousness of man――――as to _deserving_ our justification.”
♦ “our” replaced with “out”
“And therefore St. _Paul_ declareth nothing on the behalf of man,
concerning his justification but only a true faith.”
*“And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, to be
join’d with faith (that is, _afterwards_; see below) in every man that
is justified――――neither doth faith shut out the righteousness of our
good works, necessarily to be done _afterwards_. But it excludeth them
so, that we may not do them to this intent to be made just (or, to be
justified) by doing them.”
“That we are _justified by faith alone_, is spoken, to take away
clearly all _merit_, of our works, and wholly to ascribe the _merit and
deserving_ of our justification unto Christ only.” _ibid. Part II._
“The true meaning of this saying, we be justified by faith only, is
this, we be justified by the _merits_ of Christ only, and not of our
own works.” _ibid. Part III._
7. Thus far touching the _meritorious cause_ of our justification;
referred to in the 11th article. The 12th and 13th are a summary of
what now follows, with regard to the _condition_ of it.
“Of (justifying) true faith, three things are specially to be noted,
1. That it bringeth forth good works. 2. That without it, can no good
works be done. 3. What good works it doth bring forth.” _Sermon on
faith. Part I._
“Without faith can no good work be done, accepted and pleasant unto God.
For _as a branch cannot bear fruit of itself_, saith our Saviour Christ,
_except it abide in the vine, so cannot you, except you abide in me_.
Faith giveth life to the soul; and they be as much dead to God that
lack faith, as they be to the world, whose bodies lack souls. Without
faith all that is done of us, is but dead before God. Even as a picture
is but a dead representation of the thing itself, so be the works of
all unfaithful (unbelieving) persons before God. They be but shadows of
lively and good things, and not good things indeed. For true faith doth
give life to the works, and without faith no work is good before God.”
_ibid. Part III._
“We must set no good works before faith, nor think that before faith
a man may do any good works. For such works are as the course of an
horse that runneth out of the way, which taketh great labour, but to
no purpose.” _ibid._
“Without faith we have no virtues, but only the shadows of them. All
the life of them that lack the true faith is sin.” _ibid._
“As men first have life, and after be nourished, so must our faith go
before, and after be nourished with good works. And life may be without
nourishment, but nourishment cannot be without life.” _Homily of works
annexed to faith. Part I._
“I can shew a man, that by faith without works lived and came to heaven.
But without faith never man had life. The thief on the cross only
believed, and the most merciful God justified him. Truth it is, if he
had lived and not regarded faith and the works thereof, he should have
lost his salvation again. But this I say, faith by itself saved him.
But works by themselves never justified any man.”
“Good works go not before, in him which shall afterwards be justified.
But good works do follow after, when a man is first justified.” _Homily
on fasting. Part I._
8. From the whole tenor then of her liturgy, articles and homilies, the
doctrine of the church of _England_ appears to be this:
1. That no _good work_ properly so called, can _go before_
justification:
2. That _no degree_ of true sanctification can be previous to it.
3. That as the _meritorious cause_ of justification is, the life and
death of Christ; so the _condition_ of it, is faith. Faith alone; and
4. That both inward and outward holiness, are consequent on this faith,
and are the ordinary, stated condition, of final justification.
9. And what more can _you_ desire, who have hitherto opposed
_justification by faith alone_, merely upon a principle of conscience;
because you was zealous for holiness and good works? Do I not
effectually secure these from contempt, at the same time that I defend
the doctrines of the church? I not only allow, but vehemently contend,
that none shall ever enter into glory, who is not holy on earth, as
well in heart, as _in all manner of conversation_. I cry aloud, _Let
all that have believed, be careful to maintain good works_: and, _Let
every one that nameth the name of Christ, depart from all iniquity_.
I exhort even those who are conscious they do not believe, _Cease to
do evil, learn to do well: the kingdom of heaven is at hand_; therefore
_repent, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance_. Are not these
directions the very same in substance, which you yourself would give
to persons so circumstanced? What means then this endless _strife of
words_? Or, _what doth your arguing prove?_
10. Many of those who are perhaps as zealous of good works, as you,
think I have allowed you too much.――Nay, my brethren, but how can we
help allowing it, if we allow the scriptures to be from God? For is it
not written, and do not you yourselves believe, _Without holiness no
man shall see the Lord_? And how then, without fighting about words,
can we deny, that holiness is a condition of final acceptance? And,
as to the first acceptance or pardon, does not all experience as well
as scripture prove, that no man ever yet truly _believed the gospel_,
who did not first _repent_? That none was ever yet truly _convinced
of righteousness_, who was not first _convinced of sin_? Repentance
therefore in _this_ sense, we cannot deny to be necessarily previous to
faith. Is it not equally undeniable, that the running back into known,
wilful sin, (suppose it were drunkenness or uncleanness) stifles that
repentance or conviction? And can that repentance come to any good
issue in his soul, who resolves not to forgive his brother? Or who
obstinately refrains from what God convinces him is right, whether
it be prayer or hearing his word? Would you scruple yourself to tell
one of these, “Why, if you _will_ thus drink away all conviction,
how should you ever truly know your want of Christ? Or consequently,
believe in him?――If you _will_ not forgive your brother _his_
trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you _your_
trespasses――If you will not ask, how can you expect to receive?――If
you _will_ not hear, how can _faith come by hearing_? It is plain, you
_grieve the Spirit of God_; you _will not_ have him to reign over you.
Take care that he does not utterly depart from you. For _unto him that
hath, shall be given: but from him that hath not_, i. e. uses it not,
_shall be taken away, even that which he hath_.” Would you scruple, on
a proper occasion to say this? You could not scruple it, if you believe
the bible. But in saying this, you allow all which I have said, viz.
That previous to justifying faith, there _must_ be repentance, and if
opportunity permit, _Fruits meet for repentance_.
*11. And yet I allow you this, that altho’ both repentance and the
fruits thereof are in _some sense_ necessary before justification,
yet neither the one nor the other is necessary in the _same sense_,
or in the _same degree_ with faith. Not in the _same degree_. For in
whatever moment a man believes (in the Christian sense of the word) he
is justified, his sins are blotted out, _his faith is counted to him
for righteousness_. But it is not so, at whatever moment he repents,
or brings forth any, or all the fruits of repentance. Faith alone
therefore justifies; which repentance alone does not; much less any
outward work. And consequently, none of these are necessary to
justification, in the _same degree_ with faith.
*Nor in the _same sense_. For none of these has so direct, immediate
a relation to justification as faith. This is _proximately_ necessary
thereto; repentance, _remotely_, as it is necessary to the increase or
continuance of faith. And even in this sense, these are only necessary,
on supposition――――if there be time and opportunity for them: for in
many instances there is not: but God cuts short his work, and faith
prevents the fruits of repentance. So that the general proportion is
not overthrown, but clearly established by these concessions; and we
conclude still, both on the authority of scripture and the church, that
faith alone is the proximate condition of justification.
III. 1. I was once inclined to believe that none would openly object,
against what I had any where said of the _nature of salvation_. How
greatly then was I surprised some months ago, when I was shewn a kind
of circular letter, which one¹ of those whom _the Holy Ghost hath made
overseers_ of his church, I was informed, had sent to all the clergy of
his diocese!
¹ The (then) Archbishop of _York_.
Part of it ran (nearly, if not exactly) thus:
“There is great indiscretion in preaching up a sort of religion, as the
true and only Christianity, which in their own account of it, consists
in an enthusiastic ardor, to be understood or attained by very few, and
not to be practised without breaking in upon the common duties of life.”
O my Lord, what manner of words are these! Supposing candour and love
out of the question, are they the words of truth? I dare stake my life
upon it, there is not one true clause in all this paragraph.
The propositions contained therein, are these:
1. That the religion I preach, consists in enthusiastic ardor:
2. That it can be attained by very few:
3. That it can be understood by very few:
4. That it cannot be practised without breaking in upon the common
duties of life.
5. And that all this may be proved by my own account of it.
I earnestly intreat your grace, to review my own account of it, as it
stands in any of my former writings; or to consider the short account
which is given in this. And if you can thence make good any one of
those propositions, I do hereby promise before God and the world, that
I will never preach more.
At present I do not well understand what your grace means by “An
enthusiastic ardor.” Surely you do not mean, the love of God! No, not
though a poor, pardoned sinner should _carry it so far_, as to love the
Lord his God, with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all
his strength! But this alone is the _ardor_ which I _preach up_, as the
foundation of _the true and only Christianity_. I pray God so to fill
your whole heart therewith, that you may praise him for ever and ever.
But why should your grace believe, that the love of God, _can be
attained by very few_? Or, that it _can be understood by very few_?
All who attain it, understand it well. And did not he who is loving to
every man design, that every man should attain true love? O that all
would know in this their day, the things that make for their peace!
And _cannot_ the love both of God and our neighbour _be practised,
without breaking in upon the common duties of life_? Nay, can any
of the common duties of life, be rightly practised without them?
I apprehend not. I apprehend I am then laying the true, the only
foundation for all those duties, when I preach _Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself_.
2. With this letter was sent (I believe to every clergyman in the
diocese) the pamphlet intitled, _Observations on the conduct and
behaviour of a certain sect, usually distinguished by the name of
Methodists_. It has been generally supposed to be wrote by a person,
who is every way my superior. Perhaps one reason why he did not
inscribe his name was, that his greatness might not make me afraid:
and that I might have liberty to stand, as it were, on even ground,
while I answer for myself.
In considering, therefore, such parts of these _observations_, as
naturally fall in my way, I will take that method which, I believe, the
author desires, using no ceremony at all: but speaking as to an equal,
that it may the more easily be discerned, where the truth lies.
The first query relating to doctrine, is this.
“Whether notions in religion may not be heightened to such _extremes_,
as to lead _some_ into a disregard of religion itself, through despair
of attaining such exalted heights? And whether _others_ who have
imbibed those notions, may not be led by them, into a disregard
and disesteem of the common duties and offices of life? To such a
degree, at least, as is inconsistent with that attention to them,
and that diligence in them, which Providence has made necessary to
the well-being of private families and public societies, and which
christianity does not only require in all stations, and in all
conditions, but declares at the same time, that the performance even
of the lowest offices in life, _as unto God_, (whose providence has
placed people in their several stations) is truly a _serving of_ Christ,
and will not fail of its reward in the next world?”
You have interwoven so many particulars in this general question, that
I must divide and answer them one by one.
_Q._ 1. Whether notions in religion may not be heightened to such
_extremes_ as to lead _some_ into a disregard of religion itself?
_A._ They may. But that I have _so_ heightened them, it lies upon you
to prove.
_Q._ 2. Whether _others_ may not be led into a disregard of religion,
through despair of attaining such exalted heights?
_A._ What heights? The loving GOD with all our heart? I believe, this
is the most exalted height in man or angel. But I have not heard, that
any have been led into a disregard of religion, through despair of
attaining this.
_Q._ 3. Whether _others_ who have imbibed these notions, may not be
led by them, into a disregard and disesteem, of the _common_ duties and
offices of life?
_A._ My notions are, “True religion is the loving God with all our
heart, and our neighbour as ourselves; and in that love abstaining
from all evil, and doing all possible good to all men.” Now, it is
not possible in the nature of things, that any should be _led by these
notions_, into either a disregard or disesteem of the _common_ duties
and offices of life.
_Q._ 4. But may they not be _led by them_ into such a degree at least,
of disregard for the common duties of life, as is inconsistent with
that attention to them, and diligence in them, which Providence has
made necessary?
_A._ No. Quite the reverse. They lead men to discharge all those duties
with the strictest diligence and closest attention.
_Q._ 5. Does not christianity require this attention and diligence in
all stations and in all conditions?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ 6. Does it not declare, that the performance even of the lowest
offices of life, _as unto God_, is truly _a serving of_ Christ? and
will not fail of its reward in the next world?
_A._ It does. But whom are you confuting? Not me. For this is the
doctrine I preach continually.
3. Query the second. “Whether the enemy of christianity may not find
his account, in carrying christianity, which was designed for a rule
to _all_ stations and _all_ conditions, to such _heights_ as make it
fairly practicable by a _very few_, in comparison, or rather by none?”
I answer, 1. The _height_ to which we carry christianity (as was but
now observed) is this, _Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and thy neighbour as thyself_. 2. The enemy of christianity
cannot find his account, in our carrying it to _this height_. 3. You
will not say on reflection, that christianity, even in this height,
is practicable by _very few_, or rather _by none_: You yourself
will confess, this _is_ a rule (as God designed it should) for _all_
stations, and _all_ conditions.
Query the third. “Whether, in particular, the carrying the doctrine
of justification _by faith alone_ to such a height, as not to allow
that a sincere and careful observance of moral duties is so much as a
_condition_ of our acceptance with God, and of our being justified in
his sight: Whether this, I say, does not naturally lead people to a
_disregard_ of those duties, and a low esteem of them; or rather to
think them no part of the christian religion?”
I trust justification _by faith alone_, has been so explained above,
as to secure, not only a high esteem, but also a careful and sincere
observance of all moral duties.
4. Query the fourth. “Whether a due and regular attendance on the
public offices of religion, paid by good men in a serious and composed
way, does not answer the true ends of devotion, and is not a better
evidence of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, than those sudden
agonies, roarings, screamings, tremblings, droppings down, ravings,
and madnesses, into which their hearers have been cast?”
I must answer this ♦query likewise part by part.
♦ “querry” replaced with “query”
_Q._ 1. Whether a due and regular attendance on the public offices of
religion, paid in a serious and composed way, by good [_i. e._ well
meaning] men, does not answer the true ends of devotion?
_A._ I suppose by _devotion_ you mean public worship; by the _true
ends_ of it, the love of God and man: and by a _due and regular
attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and
composed way_, the going as often as we have opportunity to our parish
church, and to the sacrament there administred. If so, the question
is, “Whether _this attendance_ on _those offices_, does not produce
the love of God and man?” I answer, sometimes it does; and sometimes
it does not. I myself thus attended them for many years; and yet am
conscious to myself, that during that whole time, I had no more of the
love of God than a stone. And I know many hundreds, perhaps thousands
of serious persons, who are ready to testify the same thing.
_Q._ 2. But is not this a better evidence of the co-operation of the
Holy Spirit, than those _sudden agonies_?
_A._ All these persons, as well as I, can testify also, that this is no
evidence at all of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit. For some years
I attended these public offices, _because I would not be punished_ for
non-attendance. And many of these attended them, _because their parents
did before them_, or _because they would not lose their character_.
Many more, because they confounded the means with the end, and fancied
this _opus operatum_ would bring them to heaven. How many thousands are
now under this strong delusion? Beware, you bring not their blood on
your own head?
_Q._ 3. However, does not this attendance better answer those ends,
than those roarings, screamings, &c.?
I suppose you mean, “Better than an attendance on that preaching, which
has often been accompanied with these.”
I answer. 1. There is no manner of need to set the one in opposition to
the other: Seeing we continually exhort all who attend on our preaching,
to attend the offices of the church. And they do pay a more regular
attendance there, than ever they did before. 2. Their attending the
church did not, in fact answer those ends at all, ’till they attended
this preaching also. 3. It is the preaching of remission of sins
through Jesus Christ, which alone answers the true ends of devotion.
And this will always be accompanied with the co-operation of the Holy
Spirit; tho’ not always with sudden agonies, roarings, screamings,
tremblings, or droppings down. Indeed if God is pleased at any time
to permit any of these, I cannot hinder it. Neither can this hinder
the work of his Spirit in the soul: which may be carried on either
with or without them. But 4. I cannot apprehend it to be any reasonable
proof, That “this is not the work of God,” that a convinced sinner
should _fall into an extreme agony, both of body and soul_, (Journal 3.
page 26.) That another should _roar for the disquietness of her heart_,
(page 40.) that others should scream or _cry with a loud and bitter
cry, “What must we do to be saved?”_ (page 50.) that others should
_exceedingly tremble and quake_, (page 58.) And others, in a deep
sense of the majesty of God, _should fall prostrate upon the ground_.
(page 59.)
Indeed by picking out one single word from a sentence, and then putting
together what you had gleaned in sixty or seventy pages, you have drawn
a terrible groupe, for them who look no farther than those two lines in
_the observations_. But the bare addition of half a line to each word,
just as it stands in the place from which you quoted it, reconciles all
both to scripture and reason, and the spectre-form vanishes away.
You have taken into your account, _ravings, and madnesses too_. As
instances of the former, you refer to the case of _John Haydon_, page
44. and of _Thomas Maxfield_, page 50. I wish you would calmly consider,
his reasoning on that head, who is not prejudiced in my favour. “What
influence sudden and sharp awakenings may have upon the body, I pretend
not to explain. But I make no question _Satan_, so far as he gets power
may exert himself on such occasions, partly to hinder the good work in
the persons who are thus touched with the sharp arrows of conviction,
and partly to disparage the work of God, as if it tended to lead people
to distraction.”
For instances of madness you refer to pages 88, 90, 91, 92, 93. The
words in page 88. are these:
“I could not but be under some concern, with regard to one or two
persons, who were tormented in an unaccountable manner, and _seemed_
to be indeed _lunatic_ as well as _sore vexed_――Soon after I was sent
for to one of these, who was so strangely _torn of the devil_, that
I almost wondered her relations did not say, much religion _hath made
thee mad_. We prayed God to _bruise Satan_ under her feet. Immediately
_we had the petition we asked of him_. She cried out vehemently ‘He is
gone, he is gone,’ and was filled with the Spirit of _love, and of a
sound mind_. I have seen her many times since, strong in the Lord. When
I asked abruptly, ‘What do you desire now?’ She answered, ‘Heaven.’ I
asked, ‘What is in your heart?’ She replied, ‘God.’ I asked, ‘But how
is your heart when any thing provokes you?’ She said, ‘By the grace of
God, I am not provoked at any thing. All the things of this world pass
by me as shadows.’ Are these the words of one that is beside herself?
Let any man of reason judge!”
Your next instance, page 90. stands thus:
“About noon I came to _Usk_, where I preached to a small company of
poor people, on, _The Son of man is come, to save that which is lost_.
One grey-headed man wept and trembled exceedingly: and another who
was there (I have since heard) as well as two or three who were at
the _Devauden, are gone quite distracted_; that is (my express words
that immediately follow, specifying what it was which _some accounted
distraction_) ‘They mourn and refuse to be comforted, until they have
_redemption through his blood_.’”
If _you_ think the case mentioned, pages 92, 93. to be another instance
of madness, I contend not. It was because I did not understand that
uncommon case, that I prefaced it with this reflection, “The fact I
nakedly relate, and leave every man to his own judgment upon it.” Only
be pleased to observe, that this _madness_, if such it was, is no more
chargeable upon _me_ than upon _you_. For the subject of it had no
relation to, or commerce with _me_, nor had I ever seen her before that
hour.
5. Query the fifth. “Whether those exalted strains in religion, and
an imagination of being already in a state of _perfection_, are not
apt to lead men to spiritual pride, and to a contempt of their fellow
christians; while they consider _them_ as only going on in what they
call the _low_ and _imperfect_ way, (_i. e._ as growing in grace and
goodness only _by degrees_) even though it appear by the _lives_ of
those who are considered by them as in that _low_ and _imperfect_ way,
that they are persons who are gradually working out their salvation,
by their own honest endeavours, and through the ordinary assistances
of God’s grace; with an humble reliance upon the merits of Christ for
the pardon of their sins, and the acceptance of their sincere, though
_imperfect_ services?”
I must divide this query too, but first permit me to ask, What do you
mean by _those exalted strains in religion_? I have said again and
again, I know of no more exalted strain, than “I will love thee, O Lord,
my God:” Especially according to the propriety of _David_’s expression
ארחמך יהוה. _Ex intimis visceribus diligam te, Domine._ This premised,
let us go on step by step.
_Q._ 1. Whether the preaching of “loving God from our inmost bowels,”
is not apt to lead men to spiritual pride, and to a contempt of their
fellow Christians?
_A._ No: But so far as it takes place, it will humble them to the dust.
_Q._ 2. Whether an imagination of being already in a state of
_perfection_, is not _apt to lead_ men into spiritual pride.
_A._ 1. If it be a _false_ imagination, it _is_ spiritual pride. 2. But
_true_ Christian perfection is no other than humble love.
_Q._ 3. Do not men who imagine they have attained this, despise others,
as only going on in what they account the _low_ and _imperfect_ way,
_i. e._ as growing in grace and goodness _by degrees_.
_A._ 1. Men who _only imagine_ they have attained this, may probably
despise those that are going in any way. 2. But the growing in grace
and goodness by degrees, is no mark of a _low_ and _imperfect_ way.
Those who are fathers in Christ, grow in grace _by degrees_, as well
as the newborn babes.
_Q._ 4. Do they not despise those who are working out their salvation,
with an humble reliance upon the merits of Christ for the pardon of
their sins, and the acceptance of their sincere, tho’ _imperfect_
services?
_A._ 1. They who really love God, despise no man. But 2. they grieve
to hear many talk of thus _relying on_ Christ, who, though perhaps they
are grave, honest, moral men, yet by their own words, appear, not to
love God at all; whose souls cleave to the dust, who love the world;
who have no part of the mind that was in Christ.
6. Query the sixth. “Whether the same exalted strains and notions,
do not tend to weaken the _natural_ and _civil_ relations among men,
by leading the inferiors into whose heads those notions are infused
to a disesteem of their superiors; while they consider them as in
a much _lower dispensation_ than themselves; though those superiors
are otherwise _sober_ and _good_ men, and regular attendants on the
ordinances of religion?”
I have mentioned before, What those exalted notions are: these do not
tend to weaken either the _natural_ or _civil_ relations among men; or
to lead inferiors to a disesteem of their superiors, even where those
superiors are neither _good_ nor _sober_ men.
Query the seventh. “Whether a _gradual_ improvement in grace and
goodness is not a better foundation of comfort, and of an assurance
of a gospel new-birth, than that which is founded on the doctrine of a
_sudden_ and _instantaneous_ change; which, if there be any such thing,
is not so easily distinguished from fancy and imagination; the workings
whereof we may well suppose to be more _strong_ and _powerful_, while
the person considers himself in the state of one who is admitted as a
♦candidate for such a change, and is taught in due time to expect it?”
♦ “canditate” replaced with “candidate”
Let us go one step at a time.
_Q._ 1. Whether a _gradual_ improvement in grace and goodness, is not
a good foundation of comfort?
_A._ Doubtless it is, if by grace and goodness be meant the knowledge
and love of God through Christ.
_Q._ 2. Whether it be not a good _foundation_ of an assurance of a
gospel new-birth?
_A._ If we daily grow in this knowledge and love, it is a good _proof_
that we are born of the Spirit. But this does in no wise supersede the
previous witness of God’s Spirit with ours, that we are the children of
God. And this is properly the _foundation_ of the assurance of faith.
_Q._ 3. Whether this improvement is not a better foundation of comfort,
and of an assurance of a gospel new-birth, than that which is founded
on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change?
_A._ A better foundation than _that――That!_ What? To what substantive
does this refer? According to the rules of grammar, (for all the
other substantives are in the genitive case, and consequently to be
considered as only parts of that which governs them) you must mean,
“A better foundation than that foundation which is founded on this
doctrine.” As soon as I understand the question, I will endeavour to
answer it.
_Q._ 4. Can that _sudden_ and _instantaneous_ change be easily
distinguished from fancy and imagination?
_A._ Just as easily as light from darkness: seeing it brings with it a
peace that passeth all understanding, a joy unspeakable, full of glory,
the love of God and all mankind filling the heart, and power over all
sin.
_Q._ 5. May we not well suppose the workings of imagination to be more
_strong_ and _powerful_ in one who is taught to expect such a change?
_A._ Perhaps we may――But still the tree is known by its fruits. And
such fruits as those above-mentioned imagination was never yet strong
enough to produce, nor any _power_, save that of the Almighty.
7. There is only one clause in the eighth query which falls under our
present enquiry.
“They make it their _principal_ employ, wherever they go, to instil
into people a few _favorite tenets_ of their own; and this with such
diligence and zeal as if the whole of Christianity depended upon them,
and all efforts toward the true Christian life, without a belief of
those tenets, were vain and ineffectual.”
I plead guilty to this charge. I do make it my _principal_, nay, my
whole employ, and that wherever I go, to instil into the people, a few
_favourite tenets_. (Only be it observed, they are not _my own_, but
his that sent me.) And it is undoubtedly true, that this I do, (tho’
deeply conscious of my want, both of zeal and diligence) as if the
whole of Christianity depended upon them, and all efforts without them
were void and vain.
I frequently sum them all up in one, _in Christ Jesus_, (_i. e._
according to his gospel) _neither circumcision availeth any thing nor
uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love_. But many times I
instil them one by one, under these, or the like expressions. _Thou
shalt love the Lord thy |God| with all thy heart, and with all thy mind,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself_; as thy own soul; as Christ loved us. God _is
love: and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in |God|, and |God| in him.
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling
of the law. While we have time let us do good unto all men; especially
unto them that are of the houshold of faith. Whatsoever ye would that
men should do unto you, even so do unto them._
These are my _favourite tenets_, and have been for many years. O that
I could instil them into every soul throughout the land! Ought they
not to be instilled with such diligence and zeal, as if the whole of
Christianity depended upon them? For who can deny, that all efforts
toward a Christian life, without more than a bare _belief_, without
a thorough _experience_ and _practice_ of these, are utterly vain and
ineffectual?
*8. Part of your ninth _query_ is to the same effect:
“A few young heads set up _their own schemes_, as the great standard
of Christianity: and indulge _their own notions_ to such a degree,
as to perplex, unhinge, terrify and distract the minds of multitudes
of people, who have lived from their infancy under a gospel-ministry,
and in the regular exercise of a gospel-worship. And all this, by
persuading them, that they neither are, nor can be true Christians, but
by adhering to _their doctrines_.”
What do you mean by _their own_ schemes? Their _own_ notions? _Their_
doctrines? Are they not _yours_ too? Are they not the schemes, the
notions, the doctrines of Jesus Christ? The great, fundamental truths
of his gospel? Can you deny one of them, without denying the bible?――It
is hard for you to kick against the pricks!
“They persuade (you say) multitudes of people, that they cannot be
true Christians, but by adhering to their doctrines.” Why, who says
they can? Whosoever he be, I will prove him to be an infidel. Do _you_
say, that any man can be a true Christian, without loving God and his
neighbour? Surely you have not so learned Christ! It is _your_ doctrine,
as well as _mine_, and St. _Paul_’s, _Though I speak with the tongue
of men and angels, though I have all knowledge, and all faith; though
I give all my goods to feed the poor, yea, my body to be burned, and
have not love, I am nothing_.
Whatever public worship, therefore, people may have attended, or
whatever ministry they have lived under from their infancy, they must,
at all hazards, be convinced of this, or they perish for ever: yea,
though that conviction at first _unhinge_ them ever so much; though it
should in a manner, _distract_ them for a season. For it is better they
should be _perplexed_ and _terrified_ now, than that they should sleep
on and awake in hell.
9. In the 10, 12, and 13th _queries_ I am not concerned. But you
include me also, when you say in the 11th, “They absolutely deny, that
recreations of any kind, considered as such, are, or can be innocent.”
I cannot find any such assertion of mine, either in the place you refer
to, or any other. But what kinds of recreation are innocent, it is easy
to determine by that plain rule, _Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever
ye do, do all to the glory of God_.
I am now to take my leave of you for the present. But first I would
earnestly intreat you, to acquaint yourself what our doctrines are,
before you make any farther _observations_ upon them. Surely, touching
the _nature_ of salvation we agree, That _pure religion and undefiled
is this, to visit the fatherless and widow in their affliction_, to
do all possible good, from a principle of love to God and man: _and
to keep ourselves unspotted from the world_, inwardly and outwardly
to abstain from all evil.
*10. With regard to the _condition_ of salvation, it may be remembered,
that I allow, not only faith, but likewise holiness or universal
obedience, to be the ordinary condition of _final_ salvation: and that
when I say, faith alone is the condition of _present_ salvation, what
I would assert is this; 1. That without faith no man can be saved from
his sins, can be either inwardly or outwardly holy. And 2. That at what
time soever faith is given, holiness commences in the soul. For that
instant, _the love of God_, (which is the source of holiness) _is shed
abroad in the heart_.
But it is objected by the author of “_The Notions of the Methodists
disproved_,” “St. _James_ says, _Can faith save him_?” I answer, such
a faith as is without works cannot _bring a man to heaven_. But this is
quite beside the present question.
You object, 2. “St. _Paul_ says, that _faith made perfect by love_,
St. _James_, that _faith made perfect by works_, is the condition of
salvation.” You mean final salvation. I say so too: but this also is
beside the question.
You object, 3. _That the belief of the gospel_, is called the
_obedience of faith_, Romans i. 5. And 4. That what _Isaiah_ terms
_believing_, St. _Paul_ terms _obeying_. Suppose I grant you both the
one and the other, what will you infer?
You object, 5. That in one scripture our Lord is stiled _The Saviour of
them that believe_: and in another, _The author of eternal salvation to
all them that obey him_. 6. That to the _Galatians_ St. _Paul_ writes,
_Neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but
faith which worketh by love_: and to the _Corinthians_, _circumcision
is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the
commandments of_ God. And hence you conclude, “There are several texts
of scripture, wherein unbelief and disobedience are equivalently used.”
Very true: but can you conclude from thence, that we are not _saved by
faith alone_?
11. You proceed to answer some texts which I had quoted. The first is
_Ephesians ii. 8._ _By grace ye are saved, through faith._ “But (say
you) faith does not mean here, that grace especially so called, but
includes also obedience.” But how do you prove this? That circumstance
you had forgot: and so run off with a comment upon the context; to
which I have no other objection, than that it is nothing at all to the
question.
Indeed some time after you add, “It is plain then that good works are
always, in St. _Paul_’s judgment, joined with faith.” (So undoubtedly
they are, that is, as an effect is always joined with its cause) “And
_therefore_ we are not saved by faith alone.” I cannot possibly allow
the consequence.
You afterwards cite two more texts, and add, “You see mere faith cannot
be a condition of justification.” You are out of your way. We are no
more talking now of justification than of final salvation.
In considering _Acts xvi. 31._ _Believe in the |Lord Jesus| and thou
shalt be saved._ You say again, “Here the word _believe_ does not
signify faith only.――Faith necessarily produces charity and repentance;
_therefore_, these are expressed by the word _believe_.” i. e. Faith
necessarily produces holiness. Therefore holiness is a condition of
holiness. I want farther proof. That _Paul_ and _Silas spake unto him
the word of the Lord_; and that his faith did _in the same hour_ work
by love, I take to be no proof at all.
You then undertake to shew, that confessing our sins, is a condition
of justification, and that a confidence in the love of God, is not
a condition. Some of your words are, “This, good Sir, give me leave
to say, is the greatest nonsense and contradiction possible. It ♦is
impossible you can understand this jargon yourself, and therefore you
labour in vain to make it intelligible to others. You soar aloft on
eagle’s wings, and leave the poor people to gape and stare after you.”
♦ “it” replaced with “is”
This is very pretty, and very lively. But it is nothing to the purpose.
For we are not now speaking of justification: neither have I said one
word of “the condition of justification” in the whole tract to which
you here refer.
“In the next place (say you) if we are saved (finally you mean) only by
a confidence in the love of God.”――Here I must stop you again; you are
now running beside the question, on the other hand. The sole position
which I here advance is this: true believers are saved from inward and
outward sin by faith. By faith alone the love of God and all mankind
is shed abroad in their hearts, bringing with it the mind that was in
_Christ_, and producing all holiness of conversation.
IV. 1. I am now to consider, what has been lately objected, with regard
to the _nature_ of saving _faith_.
The author last mentioned “cannot understand how those texts of St.
_John_ are at all to the purpose.” _1 John iii. 1._ _Behold what manner
of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called
the sons of |God|._ And chapter iv. 19. _We love him, because he first
loved us._ I answer 1. These texts were not produced in _the appeal_,
by way of proof, but of illustration only. But 2. I apprehend they may
be produced as a proof, both that Christian faith implies a confidence
in the love of God, and that such a confidence has a direct tendency to
salvation, to holiness both of heart and life.
_Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we
should be called the sons of |God|!_ Are not these words an expression
of Christian faith? As direct an one as can well be conceived? And
I appeal to every man, whether they do not express the strongest
confidence of the love of God? Your own comment puts this beyond
dispute. “Let us consider attentively and with grateful hearts,
the great love and mercy of God, in calling us to be his sons, and
bestowing on us the privileges belonging to such.” Do you not perceive,
that you have given up the cause? You have yourself taught us, that
these words imply “a sense of the great love and mercy of God, in
bestowing upon us the privileges belonging to his sons.”
The apostle adds, _Beloved, now are we the sons of |God|; and it doth
not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear,
we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is._
I suppose no one will say, either that these words are not expressive
of Christian faith; or, that they do not imply the strongest confidence
in the love of God. It follows, _And every man that hath this hope in
him, purifieth himself even as he is pure_.
Hence it appears, that this faith is a saving faith, that there is the
closest connexion between this faith and holiness. This text therefore
is directly to the purpose, in respect of both the propositions to be
proved.
The other is, _We love him, because he first loved us_. And here also,
for fear I should fail in the proof, you have drawn it up ready to my
hands.
“God sent his only son――to redeem us from sin, by purchasing for us
grace and salvation. By which grace we――thro’ faith and repentance have
our sins pardoned――and therefore we are bound to return the tribute of
our love and gratitude, and to obey him faithfully as long as we live.”
Now, that _we have our sins pardoned_, if we _do not know_ they are
pardoned, cannot bind us either to love or obedience. But if we do know
it, and by that very knowledge, or confidence in the pardoning love of
God, are both bound and enabled to love and obey him, this is the whole
of what I contend for.
2. You afterwards object against some other text which I had cited, to
illustrate the nature of saving faith. My words were, “Hear believing
_Job_, declaring his faith, _I know that |my| Redeemer liveth_.” I
here affirm two things, 1. That _Job_ was then a believer. 2. That he
declared his faith in these words. And all I affirm, you allow. Your
own words are, “God was pleased to bestow upon him a strong assurance
of his favour――to inspire him with a prophecy of the resurrection, and
that he should have a share in it.”
I went on, “Hear _Thomas_, when having seen he believed, crying out
my Lord and my God.” Hereon you comment thus, “The meaning of which is
that St. _Thomas_ makes a confession, both of his faith and repentance.”
I agree with you. But you add, “in St. _Thomas_’s confession there is
not implied an assurance of pardon,” you cannot agree with yourself in
this; but immediately subjoin, “If it did imply such an assurance, he
might well have it, since he had an immediate revelation of it from God
himself.”
Yet a little before you endeavoured to prove that one who was not
a whit behind the very chief apostles had not such an assurance:
where, in order to shew that faith does not imply this, you said,
St. _Paul_ methinks has fully determined this point (_1 Corinthians
iv. 4._) _I know nothing by myself_, says he, _yet am I not hereby
justified_.――“And if an apostle so illuminated, don’t think himself
justified”――Then I grant, he has fully determined the point. But before
you absolutely fix upon that conclusion, be pleased to remember your
own comment that follows, on those other words of St. _Paul_, _the
life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of |God|, who loved me and
gave himself for me_. Your words are, “And no question a person indowed
with such extraordinary gifts, might arrive at a very eminent degree of
assurance.”――So he _did arrive at a very eminent degree of assurance_,
tho’ _he did not think himself justified_!
I can scarce think you have read over that chapter to the _Colossians_:
else surely you would not assert, that those words on which the stress
lies, (_viz._ _Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness,
and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we
have redemption thro’ his blood, even the forgiveness of sins_) do
not relate to _Paul_ and _Timothy_ who wrote the epistle, but to the
_Colossians_, to whom they wrote, I need be at no pains to answer this;
for presently after your own words are, “he hath made us, meaning the
_Colossians_, as well as himself, meet to be inheritors.”――――
3. You may easily observe, that I quoted the council of _Trent_ by
memory, not having the book then by me. I own, and thank you for
correcting my mistake: but in correcting one, you make another. For
the decrees of the sixth session were not “published on the 13th of
_January_:” but the session itself began on that day.
I cannot help reciting your next words, although they are not exactly
to the present question.
“The words of the 12th canon of the council of _Trent_ are,”
“If any man shall say that justifying faith is nothing else but a
confidence in the divine mercy, remitting sins for Christ’s sake, and
that this confidence is that alone by which we are justified, let him
be accursed.” You add,
“This Sir, I am sure is true doctrine, and perfectly agreeable to the
doctrine of our church. And so you are not only anathematized by the
council of _Trent_, but also condemned by our own church.”
“Our church holds no such scandalous and disgraceful opinion.”
――According to our church, no man can have “the true faith, who has not
a loving heart.”――_Therefore_ faith is not a confidence that any man’s
sins are actually forgiven, and he reconciled to God.” (What have the
premisses to do with the conclusion!)
4. To decide this, let our church speak for herself. Whether she does
not suppose and teach, that every particular believer knows that his
sins are forgiven, and he himself is reconciled to God.
First then, our church supposes and teaches every particular believer,
to say concerning himself, “In my baptism _I was made a member of
Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. And
I thank God who hath called me to that state of salvation. And I pray
to God that I may continue in the same to my life’s end._”
Now does this person _know_ what he says to be true? If not, it is
the grossest hypocrisy. But if he does, then he knows, that _he in
particular_ is reconciled to God.
The next words I shall quote may be a comment on these: May God write
them in our hearts!
“A true christian man is not afraid to die, who is the very member
of Christ, the temple of the Holy Ghost, the Son of God, and the very
inheritor of the everlasting kingdom of heaven. But plainly contrary,
he not only puts away the fear of death, but wishes, desires and longs
heartily for it. _Sermon against the fear of death._” I. part.
Can this be, unless he has a sure confidence that he, in particular, is
reconciled to God?
“Men commonly fear death, first because of leaving their worldly goods
and pleasures. 2. For fear of the pains of death; and 3. For fear of
perpetual damnation. But none of these causes trouble good men, because
they stay themselves by true faith, perfect charity, and sure hope of
endless joy and bliss everlasting.” _ibid._ II. part.
“All these therefore have great cause to be full of joy, and not to
fear death nor everlasting damnation. For death cannot deprive them
of Jesus Christ, death cannot take him from us, nor us from him. Death
not only cannot harm us, but also shall profit us and join us to God
more perfectly. And thereof a christian heart may be surely certified.
_It is God_, saith St. _Paul_, _which hath given us an earnest of his
Spirit_. As long as we be in the body, we are in a strange country. But
we have a desire rather to be at home with God.” _ibid._
He that runneth may read in all these words, the confidence which our
church supposes, every particular believer to have, that he himself is
reconciled to God.