♦“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 bydevotionyou mean public worship; by thetrue endsof it, the love of God and man: and by adue and regular attendance onthe 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, “Whetherthis attendanceonthose 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 thosesudden 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 punishedfor non-attendance. And many of these attended them,because their parents did before them, orbecause they would not lose their character. Many more, because they confounded the means with the end, and fancied thisopus operatumwould 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 betteranswer 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 shouldfall into an extreme agony, both of body and soul, (Journal 3. page 26.) That another shouldroar for the disquietness of her heart, (page 40.) that others should scream orcry with a loud and bitter cry, “What must we do to be saved?”(page 50.) that others shouldexceedingly 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 inthe 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 ofJohn Haydon, page 44. and ofThomas 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 questionSatan, 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 weretormented in an unaccountable manner, andseemedto be indeedlunaticas well assore vexed—Soon after I was sent for to one of these, who was so strangelytorn of the devil, that I almost wondered her relations did not say, much religionhath made thee mad. We prayed God tobruise Satanunder her feet. Immediatelywe had the petition we asked of him. She cried out vehemently ‘He is gone, he is gone,’ and was filled with the Spirit oflove, 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 toUsk, 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 theDevauden, are gone quite distracted; that is (my express words that immediately follow, specifying what it was whichsome accounted distraction)‘They mourn and refuse to be comforted, until they haveredemption through his blood.’”Ifyouthink 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 thismadness, if such it was, is no more chargeable uponmethan uponyou. For the subject of it had no relation to, or commerce withme, 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 ofperfection, are not apt to lead men to spiritual pride, and to a contempt of their fellow christians; while they considerthemas only going on in what they call thelowandimperfectway, (i. e.as growing in grace and goodness onlyby degrees) even though it appear by thelivesof those who are considered by them as in thatlowandimperfectway, 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, thoughimperfectservices?”I must divide this query too, but first permit me to ask, What do you mean bythose 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 ofDavid’s expressionארחמך 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 ofperfection, is notapt to leadmen into spiritual pride.A.1. If it be afalseimagination, itisspiritual pride. 2. ButtrueChristian 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 thelowandimperfectway,i. e.as growing in grace and goodnessby degrees.A.1. Men whoonly imaginethey 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 alowandimperfectway. Those who are fathers in Christ,grow in graceby 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’imperfectservices?A.1. They who really love God, despise no man. But 2. they grieve to hear many talk of thusrelying onChrist, 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 thenaturalandcivilrelations 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 muchlower dispensationthan themselves; though those superiors are otherwisesoberandgoodmen, and regular attendants on the ordinances of religion?”I have mentioned before, What those exalted notions are: these do not tend to weaken either thenaturalorcivilrelations among men; or to lead inferiors to a disesteem of their superiors, even where those superiors are neithergoodnorsobermen.Query the seventh. “Whether agradualimprovement 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 asuddenandinstantaneouschange; 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 morestrongandpowerful, 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 agradualimprovement 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 goodfoundationof an assurance of a gospel new-birth?A.If we daily grow in this knowledge and love, it is a goodproofthat 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 thefoundationof 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 foundedon the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change?A.A better foundation thanthat—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 thatsuddenandinstantaneouschange 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 morestrongandpowerfulin 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 anypower, save that of the Almighty.7. There is only one clause in the eighth query which falls under our present enquiry.“They make it theirprincipalemploy, wherever they go, to instil into people a fewfavoritetenetsof 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 myprincipal, nay, my whole employ, and that wherever I go, to instil into the people, a fewfavourite tenets. (Only be it observed, they are notmy 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 thyGodwith 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. Godis love: and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth inGod, andGodin 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 myfavourite 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 barebelief, without a thoroughexperienceandpracticeof these, are utterly vain and ineffectual?*8. Part of your ninthqueryis to the same effect:“A few young heads set uptheir own schemes, as the great standard of Christianity: and indulgetheir own notionsto 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 totheir doctrines.”What do you mean bytheir ownschemes? Theirownnotions?Theirdoctrines? Are they notyourstoo? 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 saysthey can? Whosoever he be, I will prove him to be an infidel. Doyousay, that any man can be a true Christian, without loving God and his neighbour? Surely you have not so learned Christ! It isyourdoctrine, as well asmine, andSt.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 firstunhingethem ever so much; though it should in a manner,distractthem for a season. For it is better they should beperplexedandterrifiednow, than that they should sleep on and awake in hell.9. In the 10, 12, and13thqueriesI am not concerned. But you include me also, when you say in the11th, “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 fartherobservationsupon them. Surely, touching thenatureof salvation we agree, Thatpure 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 theconditionof salvation, it may be remembered, that I allow, not only faith, but likewise holiness or universal obedience, to be the ordinary condition offinalsalvation: and that when I say, faith alone is the condition ofpresentsalvation, 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.Jamessays,Can faith save him?” I answer, such a faith as is without works cannotbring a man to heaven. But this is quite beside the present question.You object, 2. “St.Paulsays, thatfaith made perfect by love,St.James, thatfaith made perfectby 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 theobedience of faith, Romansi.5. And 4. That whatIsaiahtermsbelieving,St.Paultermsobeying. Suppose I grant you both the one and the other, what will you infer?You object, 5. That in one scripture our Lord is stiledThe Saviour of them that believe: and in another,The author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. 6. That to theGalatiansSt.Paulwrites,Neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love: and to theCorinthians,circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the commandments ofGod. 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 notsaved by faith alone?11. You proceed to answer some texts which I had quoted. The first isEphesiansii.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 otherobjection, 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, inSt.Paul’s judgment, joined with faith.” (So undoubtedly they are, that is, as an effect is always joined with its cause) “Andthereforewe 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 consideringActsxvi.31.Believe in theLord Jesusand thou shalt be saved.You say again, “Here the wordbelievedoes not signify faith only.—Faith necessarily produces charity and repentance;therefore, these are expressed by the wordbelieve.”i. e.Faith necessarily produces holiness. Therefore holiness is a condition of holiness. I want farther proof. ThatPaulandSilas spake unto him the word of the Lord; and that his faith didin the same hourwork 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 youcan 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 inChrist, and producing all holiness of conversation.IV.1. I am now to consider, what has been lately objected, with regard to thenatureof savingfaith.The author last mentioned “cannot understand how those texts ofSt.Johnare at all to the purpose.”1 Johniii.1.Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons ofGod.And chapteriv.19.We love him, because he first loved us.I answer1. These texts were not produced inthe 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 ofGod!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 ofGod; 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 manthat 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, thatwe have our sins pardoned, if wedo not knowthey 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 believingJob, declaring his faith,I know thatmyRedeemer liveth.” I here affirm two things, 1. ThatJobwas then a believer. 2. That he declared his faith in these words. And all I affirm, you allow. Your own words are, “God was pleasedto 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, “HearThomas, when having seen he believed, crying out my Lord and my God.” Hereon you comment thus, “The meaning of which is thatSt.Thomasmakes a confession, both of his faith and repentance.” I agree with you. But you add, “inSt.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.Paulmethinks has fully determined this point (1 Corinthiansiv.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 ofSt.Paul,the life I now live, I live by faith in the Son ofGod, who loved me and gave himself for me. Your words are, “And no question a person indowed with such extraordinary gifts, mightarrive at a very eminent degree of assurance.”—So hedid 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 theColossians: 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 toPaulandTimothywho wrote the epistle, but to theColossians, 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 theColossians, as well as himself, meet to be inheritors.”——3. You may easily observe, that I quoted the council ofTrentby 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 the13thofJanuary:” 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 the12thcanon of the council ofTrentare,”“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 ofTrent, 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.”—Thereforefaith 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 baptismI 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 personknowwhat he says to be true? If not, it is the grossest hypocrisy. But if he does, then he knows, thathe in particularis 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, saithSt.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.To proceed, “The only instrument of salvation required on our parts is faith, that is, a sure trust and confidence, that God both hath and will forgive our sins, that he hath accepted us again into his favour, for the merits of Christ’s death and passion.”Second sermon on the passion.“But here, we must take heed that we do not halt with God through an unconstant, wavering faith.Petercoming to Christ upon the water, because he fainted in faith was in danger of drowning. So we, if we begin to waver or doubt, it is to be feared lest we should sink asPeterdid: not into the water, but into the bottomless pit of hell-fire. Therefore I say unto you, that we must apprehend the merits of Christ’s death by faith, and that with a strong and stedfast faith; nothing doubting, but that Christ by his own oblation hath taken away our sins, and hath restored us again to God’s favour.”ibid.5. If it be still said, that the church speaks only of men in general, but not of the confidence of this or that particular person: even this last, poor subterfuge, is utterly cut off by the following words:“Thou, O man, hast received the body of Christ which was once broken, and his blood which was shed for the remission ofthysin. Thou hast received his body to have withintheethe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for to endowtheewith grace, and to comforttheewith their presence. Thou hast received his body, to endowtheewith everlasting righteousness, andto assure theeof everlasting bliss.”Sermon on the resurrection.I shall add but one passage more, from the first part of the sermon on the sacrament.“Have a sure and constant faith, not only that the death of Christ is available for all the world, but that he hath made a full and sufficient sacrifice forthee, a perfect cleansing ofthysins, so that thou mayst say with the apostle,he lovedthee and gave himself forthee. For this is to make Christthine own, and to apply his merits untothyself.”Let every reasonable man now judge for himself, what is the sense of our church as to thenatureofsaving faith. Does it not abundantly appear, that the church ofEnglandsupposes every particular believer, to have a sure confidence, thathissins are forgiven, and hehimselfreconciled to God? Yea, and how can the absolute necessity of this faith, this unwavering confidence, be more strongly or peremptorily asserted, than it is in those words: “If we begin to waver or doubt, it is to be feared, lest we sink asPeterdid: Not into the water; but into the bottomless pit of hell-fire?”6. I would willingly dismiss this writer here. I had said inthe earnest appeal(what I am daily more and more confirmed in) that this faith is usually given in a moment. This you greatly dislike. Your argument against it, if put into form, will run thus:“They who first apprehend the meaning of the words delivered, then gave their assent to them, then had confidence in the promises to which they assented, and lastly, loved God, did not receive faith in a moment.”But the believers mentioned inthe Acts, first apprehended the meaning of the words, then gave their assent, then had confidence in the promises, and lastly, loved God: Therefore“The believers mentioned inthe Acts, did not receive faith in a moment.”I deny the major. They might first apprehend, then assent, then confide, then love, and yet receive faith in a moment: Inthatmoment, wherein their general confidence became particular, so that each could say, “My Lord, and my God.”One paragraph more I will be at the pains to transcribe. “You insinuate, that the sacraments are only requisite to the well-being of a visible church: Whereas the church declares, that the due administration of them, is an essentialproperty thereof. I suppose you hinted this to gratify your loving disciples the Quakers.”This is flat and plain. Here is a fact positively averred: and a reason also assigned for it. Now do you take yourself to be a man of candor, I had almost said, of common honesty? My very words in the place referred to, are, “A visible church is a company of faithful people. This is the essence of it. And theproperties thereofare, That the pure word of God be preached therein, and the sacraments duly administered.”7. Before I take my leave, I cannot but recommend to you that advice of a wise and good man,“Be calm in arguing; for fierceness makesError a fault, and truth discourtesy.”I am grieved at your extreme warmth: You are in a thorough ill-humour from the very beginning of your book to the end. This cannot hurtme. But it mayyourself. And it does not at all help your cause. If you denounce against me all the curses fromGenesisto theRevelation, they will not amount to one argument. I am willing (so far as I know myself) to be reproved either by you or any other. But whatever you do let it be done in love, in patience, in meekness of wisdom.V.1. With regard to the author of faith and salvation, abundance of objections have been made: It being a current opinion, that “Christians are not now to receive the Holy Ghost.”Accordingly, whenever we speak of the Spirit of God, of his operations on the souls of men, of hisrevealingunto us the things of God, orinspiringus with good desires or tempers: whenever we mention thefeelinghis mighty power,working in us, according to his good pleasure: The general answer we have to expect is, “This is rankenthusiasm. So it was with the apostles and first christians. But onlyenthusiastspretend to this now.”Thus all the scriptures, abundance of which might be produced, are set aside at one stroke. And whoever cites them, asbelonging to all Christians, is set down for anenthusiast.The first tract I have seen, wrote expresly on this head, is remarkably intitled,“The operations of the Holy Spiritimperceptible, and how men mayknow, when they are under the guidance and influence of the Spirit.”You begin, “As we have some among us who pretend, to a more than ordinary guidance by the Spirit—(indeed I do not: I pretend to no other guidance, than is ordinarily given to all Christians) it may not be improper to discourse, on the operation of God’s Holy Spirit.”——“To this end be thou pleased, O gracious fountain of truth, to assist me with thy heavenly direction in speaking of thee.”Alas, Sir, what need have you to speak any more? You have already granted all I desire,viz.That “we mayall nowenjoy, andknowthat wedo enjoy, the heavenly direction of God’s Spirit.”However, you go on, and observe that theextraordinary giftsof the Holy Ghost, were granted to the first Christians only, but hisordinary gracesto all Christians in all ages: Both which you then attempt to enumerate: Only suspending your discourse a little, when “some conceitedenthusiasts” come in your way.2. You next enquire, “After what manner these graces are raised in our souls?” And answer, “How to distinguish these heavenly motions, from the natural operations of our minds, we have no light to discover. The scriptures—declaring that the operations of the Holy Spirit, are not subject to any sensiblefeelingsor perceptions. For what communication can there be betweenfeelings, which are properties peculiar to matter, and the suggestions of the Spirit?——All reasonable Christians believe, that he works his graces in us in an imperceptible manner; and that there is no sensible difference between his and the natural operations of our minds.”I conceive this to be the strength of your cause. To support that conclusion, that the operations of the Spirit are imperceptible, you here alledge, 1. “That all reasonable Christians believe this.” So you say. But I want proof. 2. “That there can be no communications (I fear, you mistook the word) between the suggestions of the Spirit, andfeelingswhich arepropertiespeculiarto matter.” How! Are thefeelingsnow in question,properties peculiar to matter? Thefeelingof peace, joy, love? Or anyfeelingsat all? I can no more understand the philosophy than the divinity of this. 3. “That the scriptures declare, the operations of the Spirit are not subject to anysensible feelings.” You are here disproving, as you suppose, a proposition of mine. But are you sure you understand it? Byfeeling, I mean, being inwardly conscious of. Bythe operations of the Spirit, I do not meanthe mannerin which he operates, butthe graceswhich he operates in a Christian. Now be pleased to produce those Scriptures which declare, “That a Christian cannotfeelorperceive these operations.”3. Are you not convinced, Sir, that you have laid to my charge things which I know not? I do not gravely tell you (as much anenthusiastas you over and over affirm me to be) “That Isensibly feel(inyoursense) the motions of the Holy Spirit.” Much less do I “make this, any more than convulsions, agonies, howlings, roarings, and violent contorsions of the body,” either “Certain signs of mens being in a state of salvation,” or “necessary in order thereunto.” You might with equal justice and truth inform the world, and the worshipful the magistrates ofNewcastle, that I makeseeing the wind, orfeelingthe light, necessary to salvation.Neither do I “confound theextraordinarywith theordinaryoperations of the Spirit.” Andas to your last enquiry, “What is the best proof of our being led by the Spirit?” I have no exception to that just and scriptural answer, which you yourself have given, “A thorough change and renovation of mind and heart, and the leading a new and holy life.”4. “That I confound theextraordinarywith theordinaryoperations of the Spirit, and therefore am anenthusiast,” is also strongly urged, in a charge delivered to his clergy, and lately published by the Lord Bishop ofLitchfieldandCoventry.An extract of the former part of this, I subjoin, in his Lordship’s words.“I cannot think it improper to obviate the contagion, of thoseenthusiasticalpretensions, that have lately betrayed whole multitudes, either into presumption or melancholy.Enthusiasmindeed when detected, is apt to create infidelity; and infidelity is so shocking a thing, that many rather run into the other extreme, and take refuge inenthusiasm. But infidelity andenthusiasmseem now to act in concert against our established religion. As infidelity has been sufficiently opposed, I shall now lay before you the weakness of thoseenthusiasticalpretensions.” page 1, 2.Now to confute effectually, and strike at the root of thoseenthusiasticalpretensions,“First, I shall shew, that it is necessary to lay down some method for distinguishing real from pretended inspiration.” page 3, 5.“Many expressions occur in thenew Testament, concerning the operations of the holy Spirit. But men of anenthusiasticaltemper, have confounded passages of a quite different nature, and have jumbled together those that relate to theextraordinaryoperations of the Spirit, with those that relate only to hisordinaryinfluences. It is therefore necessary to use some method for separating those passages, relating to the operations of the Spirit, that have been so misapplied to the service ofenthusiasticalpretenders.” Page 5, 6, 7.“I proceed therefore to shew,“Secondly, That a distinction is to be made between those passages of scripture about the blessed Spirit that peculiarly belong to the primitive church, and those that relate to Christians in all ages.” Page 7.“The exigencies of the apostolical age required themiraculousgifts of the Spirit. But these soon ceased. When therefore we meet in the scripture with an account of thoseextraordinarygifts, and likewise with an account of hisordinaryoperations, we must distinguish the one from the other. And that not only for our own satisfaction, but as a means to stop the growth ofenthusiasm.” Page 8, 9, 10.“And such a distinction ought to be made, by the best methods of interpreting the scriptures: which most certainly are an attentive consideration of the occasion and scope of those passages,in concurrence with the general sense of the primitive church.” page 11.“I propose, Thirdly, to specify some of the chief passages of scripture, that are misapplied by modernEnthusiasts, and to shew that they are to be interpretedchiefly, if not only, of the apostolical church; and that they very little, if at all relate, to the present state of Christians.” page 12.“I begin, says your Lordship, with the original promise of the Spirit, as made by our Lord a little before he left the world.”I must take the liberty to stop your Lordship on the threshold. I deny this original promise of the Spirit. I expect his assistance, in virtue of many promises, some hundred years prior to this.If you say, “However this isthe originalor firstpromise of the Spirit, in the new Testament.” No, my Lord; those words were spoken long before:he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.Will you reply? “Well, but this is the original promisemade by ourLord.” I answer, not so neither, for it was before this, Jesus himselfstood and cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink, he that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. And this he spake of the Spirit, which they should receive who believed on him(♦οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν). If I mistake not, this may more justly be termed,ourLord’soriginal promise of the Spirit. And who will assert, that this is to be interpretedchiefly, if not onlyof the apostolical church?”
♦“querry” replaced with “query”
♦“querry” replaced with “query”
♦“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 bydevotionyou mean public worship; by thetrue endsof it, the love of God and man: and by adue and regular attendance onthe 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, “Whetherthis attendanceonthose 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 thosesudden 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 punishedfor non-attendance. And many of these attended them,because their parents did before them, orbecause they would not lose their character. Many more, because they confounded the means with the end, and fancied thisopus operatumwould 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 betteranswer 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 shouldfall into an extreme agony, both of body and soul, (Journal 3. page 26.) That another shouldroar for the disquietness of her heart, (page 40.) that others should scream orcry with a loud and bitter cry, “What must we do to be saved?”(page 50.) that others shouldexceedingly 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 inthe 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 ofJohn Haydon, page 44. and ofThomas 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 questionSatan, 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 weretormented in an unaccountable manner, andseemedto be indeedlunaticas well assore vexed—Soon after I was sent for to one of these, who was so strangelytorn of the devil, that I almost wondered her relations did not say, much religionhath made thee mad. We prayed God tobruise Satanunder her feet. Immediatelywe had the petition we asked of him. She cried out vehemently ‘He is gone, he is gone,’ and was filled with the Spirit oflove, 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 toUsk, 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 theDevauden, are gone quite distracted; that is (my express words that immediately follow, specifying what it was whichsome accounted distraction)‘They mourn and refuse to be comforted, until they haveredemption through his blood.’”
Ifyouthink 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 thismadness, if such it was, is no more chargeable uponmethan uponyou. For the subject of it had no relation to, or commerce withme, 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 ofperfection, are not apt to lead men to spiritual pride, and to a contempt of their fellow christians; while they considerthemas only going on in what they call thelowandimperfectway, (i. e.as growing in grace and goodness onlyby degrees) even though it appear by thelivesof those who are considered by them as in thatlowandimperfectway, 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, thoughimperfectservices?”
I must divide this query too, but first permit me to ask, What do you mean bythose 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 ofDavid’s expressionארחמך 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 ofperfection, is notapt to leadmen into spiritual pride.
A.1. If it be afalseimagination, itisspiritual pride. 2. ButtrueChristian 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 thelowandimperfectway,i. e.as growing in grace and goodnessby degrees.
A.1. Men whoonly imaginethey 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 alowandimperfectway. Those who are fathers in Christ,grow in graceby 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’imperfectservices?
A.1. They who really love God, despise no man. But 2. they grieve to hear many talk of thusrelying onChrist, 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 thenaturalandcivilrelations 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 muchlower dispensationthan themselves; though those superiors are otherwisesoberandgoodmen, and regular attendants on the ordinances of religion?”
I have mentioned before, What those exalted notions are: these do not tend to weaken either thenaturalorcivilrelations among men; or to lead inferiors to a disesteem of their superiors, even where those superiors are neithergoodnorsobermen.
Query the seventh. “Whether agradualimprovement 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 asuddenandinstantaneouschange; 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 morestrongandpowerful, 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”
♦“canditate” replaced with “candidate”
♦“canditate” replaced with “candidate”
Let us go one step at a time.
Q.1. Whether agradualimprovement 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 goodfoundationof an assurance of a gospel new-birth?
A.If we daily grow in this knowledge and love, it is a goodproofthat 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 thefoundationof 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 foundedon the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change?
A.A better foundation thanthat—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 thatsuddenandinstantaneouschange 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 morestrongandpowerfulin 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 anypower, save that of the Almighty.
7. There is only one clause in the eighth query which falls under our present enquiry.
“They make it theirprincipalemploy, wherever they go, to instil into people a fewfavoritetenetsof 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 myprincipal, nay, my whole employ, and that wherever I go, to instil into the people, a fewfavourite tenets. (Only be it observed, they are notmy 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 thyGodwith 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. Godis love: and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth inGod, andGodin 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 myfavourite 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 barebelief, without a thoroughexperienceandpracticeof these, are utterly vain and ineffectual?
*8. Part of your ninthqueryis to the same effect:
“A few young heads set uptheir own schemes, as the great standard of Christianity: and indulgetheir own notionsto 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 totheir doctrines.”
What do you mean bytheir ownschemes? Theirownnotions?Theirdoctrines? Are they notyourstoo? 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 saysthey can? Whosoever he be, I will prove him to be an infidel. Doyousay, that any man can be a true Christian, without loving God and his neighbour? Surely you have not so learned Christ! It isyourdoctrine, as well asmine, andSt.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 firstunhingethem ever so much; though it should in a manner,distractthem for a season. For it is better they should beperplexedandterrifiednow, than that they should sleep on and awake in hell.
9. In the 10, 12, and13thqueriesI am not concerned. But you include me also, when you say in the11th, “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 fartherobservationsupon them. Surely, touching thenatureof salvation we agree, Thatpure 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 theconditionof salvation, it may be remembered, that I allow, not only faith, but likewise holiness or universal obedience, to be the ordinary condition offinalsalvation: and that when I say, faith alone is the condition ofpresentsalvation, 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.Jamessays,Can faith save him?” I answer, such a faith as is without works cannotbring a man to heaven. But this is quite beside the present question.
You object, 2. “St.Paulsays, thatfaith made perfect by love,St.James, thatfaith made perfectby 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 theobedience of faith, Romansi.5. And 4. That whatIsaiahtermsbelieving,St.Paultermsobeying. Suppose I grant you both the one and the other, what will you infer?
You object, 5. That in one scripture our Lord is stiledThe Saviour of them that believe: and in another,The author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. 6. That to theGalatiansSt.Paulwrites,Neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love: and to theCorinthians,circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the commandments ofGod. 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 notsaved by faith alone?
11. You proceed to answer some texts which I had quoted. The first isEphesiansii.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 otherobjection, 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, inSt.Paul’s judgment, joined with faith.” (So undoubtedly they are, that is, as an effect is always joined with its cause) “Andthereforewe 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 consideringActsxvi.31.Believe in theLord Jesusand thou shalt be saved.You say again, “Here the wordbelievedoes not signify faith only.—Faith necessarily produces charity and repentance;therefore, these are expressed by the wordbelieve.”i. e.Faith necessarily produces holiness. Therefore holiness is a condition of holiness. I want farther proof. ThatPaulandSilas spake unto him the word of the Lord; and that his faith didin the same hourwork 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 youcan 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”
♦“it” replaced with “is”
♦“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 inChrist, and producing all holiness of conversation.
IV.1. I am now to consider, what has been lately objected, with regard to thenatureof savingfaith.
The author last mentioned “cannot understand how those texts ofSt.Johnare at all to the purpose.”1 Johniii.1.Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons ofGod.And chapteriv.19.We love him, because he first loved us.I answer1. These texts were not produced inthe 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 ofGod!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 ofGod; 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 manthat 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, thatwe have our sins pardoned, if wedo not knowthey 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 believingJob, declaring his faith,I know thatmyRedeemer liveth.” I here affirm two things, 1. ThatJobwas then a believer. 2. That he declared his faith in these words. And all I affirm, you allow. Your own words are, “God was pleasedto 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, “HearThomas, when having seen he believed, crying out my Lord and my God.” Hereon you comment thus, “The meaning of which is thatSt.Thomasmakes a confession, both of his faith and repentance.” I agree with you. But you add, “inSt.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.Paulmethinks has fully determined this point (1 Corinthiansiv.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 ofSt.Paul,the life I now live, I live by faith in the Son ofGod, who loved me and gave himself for me. Your words are, “And no question a person indowed with such extraordinary gifts, mightarrive at a very eminent degree of assurance.”—So hedid 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 theColossians: 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 toPaulandTimothywho wrote the epistle, but to theColossians, 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 theColossians, as well as himself, meet to be inheritors.”——
3. You may easily observe, that I quoted the council ofTrentby 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 the13thofJanuary:” 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 the12thcanon of the council ofTrentare,”
“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 ofTrent, 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.”—Thereforefaith 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 baptismI 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 personknowwhat he says to be true? If not, it is the grossest hypocrisy. But if he does, then he knows, thathe in particularis 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, saithSt.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.
To proceed, “The only instrument of salvation required on our parts is faith, that is, a sure trust and confidence, that God both hath and will forgive our sins, that he hath accepted us again into his favour, for the merits of Christ’s death and passion.”Second sermon on the passion.
“But here, we must take heed that we do not halt with God through an unconstant, wavering faith.Petercoming to Christ upon the water, because he fainted in faith was in danger of drowning. So we, if we begin to waver or doubt, it is to be feared lest we should sink asPeterdid: not into the water, but into the bottomless pit of hell-fire. Therefore I say unto you, that we must apprehend the merits of Christ’s death by faith, and that with a strong and stedfast faith; nothing doubting, but that Christ by his own oblation hath taken away our sins, and hath restored us again to God’s favour.”ibid.
5. If it be still said, that the church speaks only of men in general, but not of the confidence of this or that particular person: even this last, poor subterfuge, is utterly cut off by the following words:
“Thou, O man, hast received the body of Christ which was once broken, and his blood which was shed for the remission ofthysin. Thou hast received his body to have withintheethe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for to endowtheewith grace, and to comforttheewith their presence. Thou hast received his body, to endowtheewith everlasting righteousness, andto assure theeof everlasting bliss.”Sermon on the resurrection.
I shall add but one passage more, from the first part of the sermon on the sacrament.
“Have a sure and constant faith, not only that the death of Christ is available for all the world, but that he hath made a full and sufficient sacrifice forthee, a perfect cleansing ofthysins, so that thou mayst say with the apostle,he lovedthee and gave himself forthee. For this is to make Christthine own, and to apply his merits untothyself.”
Let every reasonable man now judge for himself, what is the sense of our church as to thenatureofsaving faith. Does it not abundantly appear, that the church ofEnglandsupposes every particular believer, to have a sure confidence, thathissins are forgiven, and hehimselfreconciled to God? Yea, and how can the absolute necessity of this faith, this unwavering confidence, be more strongly or peremptorily asserted, than it is in those words: “If we begin to waver or doubt, it is to be feared, lest we sink asPeterdid: Not into the water; but into the bottomless pit of hell-fire?”
6. I would willingly dismiss this writer here. I had said inthe earnest appeal(what I am daily more and more confirmed in) that this faith is usually given in a moment. This you greatly dislike. Your argument against it, if put into form, will run thus:
“They who first apprehend the meaning of the words delivered, then gave their assent to them, then had confidence in the promises to which they assented, and lastly, loved God, did not receive faith in a moment.”
But the believers mentioned inthe Acts, first apprehended the meaning of the words, then gave their assent, then had confidence in the promises, and lastly, loved God: Therefore
“The believers mentioned inthe Acts, did not receive faith in a moment.”
I deny the major. They might first apprehend, then assent, then confide, then love, and yet receive faith in a moment: Inthatmoment, wherein their general confidence became particular, so that each could say, “My Lord, and my God.”
One paragraph more I will be at the pains to transcribe. “You insinuate, that the sacraments are only requisite to the well-being of a visible church: Whereas the church declares, that the due administration of them, is an essentialproperty thereof. I suppose you hinted this to gratify your loving disciples the Quakers.”
This is flat and plain. Here is a fact positively averred: and a reason also assigned for it. Now do you take yourself to be a man of candor, I had almost said, of common honesty? My very words in the place referred to, are, “A visible church is a company of faithful people. This is the essence of it. And theproperties thereofare, That the pure word of God be preached therein, and the sacraments duly administered.”
7. Before I take my leave, I cannot but recommend to you that advice of a wise and good man,
“Be calm in arguing; for fierceness makesError a fault, and truth discourtesy.”
“Be calm in arguing; for fierceness makesError a fault, and truth discourtesy.”
“Be calm in arguing; for fierceness makes
Error a fault, and truth discourtesy.”
I am grieved at your extreme warmth: You are in a thorough ill-humour from the very beginning of your book to the end. This cannot hurtme. But it mayyourself. And it does not at all help your cause. If you denounce against me all the curses fromGenesisto theRevelation, they will not amount to one argument. I am willing (so far as I know myself) to be reproved either by you or any other. But whatever you do let it be done in love, in patience, in meekness of wisdom.
V.1. With regard to the author of faith and salvation, abundance of objections have been made: It being a current opinion, that “Christians are not now to receive the Holy Ghost.”
Accordingly, whenever we speak of the Spirit of God, of his operations on the souls of men, of hisrevealingunto us the things of God, orinspiringus with good desires or tempers: whenever we mention thefeelinghis mighty power,working in us, according to his good pleasure: The general answer we have to expect is, “This is rankenthusiasm. So it was with the apostles and first christians. But onlyenthusiastspretend to this now.”
Thus all the scriptures, abundance of which might be produced, are set aside at one stroke. And whoever cites them, asbelonging to all Christians, is set down for anenthusiast.
The first tract I have seen, wrote expresly on this head, is remarkably intitled,
“The operations of the Holy Spiritimperceptible, and how men mayknow, when they are under the guidance and influence of the Spirit.”
You begin, “As we have some among us who pretend, to a more than ordinary guidance by the Spirit—(indeed I do not: I pretend to no other guidance, than is ordinarily given to all Christians) it may not be improper to discourse, on the operation of God’s Holy Spirit.”——
“To this end be thou pleased, O gracious fountain of truth, to assist me with thy heavenly direction in speaking of thee.”
Alas, Sir, what need have you to speak any more? You have already granted all I desire,viz.That “we mayall nowenjoy, andknowthat wedo enjoy, the heavenly direction of God’s Spirit.”
However, you go on, and observe that theextraordinary giftsof the Holy Ghost, were granted to the first Christians only, but hisordinary gracesto all Christians in all ages: Both which you then attempt to enumerate: Only suspending your discourse a little, when “some conceitedenthusiasts” come in your way.
2. You next enquire, “After what manner these graces are raised in our souls?” And answer, “How to distinguish these heavenly motions, from the natural operations of our minds, we have no light to discover. The scriptures—declaring that the operations of the Holy Spirit, are not subject to any sensiblefeelingsor perceptions. For what communication can there be betweenfeelings, which are properties peculiar to matter, and the suggestions of the Spirit?——All reasonable Christians believe, that he works his graces in us in an imperceptible manner; and that there is no sensible difference between his and the natural operations of our minds.”
I conceive this to be the strength of your cause. To support that conclusion, that the operations of the Spirit are imperceptible, you here alledge, 1. “That all reasonable Christians believe this.” So you say. But I want proof. 2. “That there can be no communications (I fear, you mistook the word) between the suggestions of the Spirit, andfeelingswhich arepropertiespeculiarto matter.” How! Are thefeelingsnow in question,properties peculiar to matter? Thefeelingof peace, joy, love? Or anyfeelingsat all? I can no more understand the philosophy than the divinity of this. 3. “That the scriptures declare, the operations of the Spirit are not subject to anysensible feelings.” You are here disproving, as you suppose, a proposition of mine. But are you sure you understand it? Byfeeling, I mean, being inwardly conscious of. Bythe operations of the Spirit, I do not meanthe mannerin which he operates, butthe graceswhich he operates in a Christian. Now be pleased to produce those Scriptures which declare, “That a Christian cannotfeelorperceive these operations.”
3. Are you not convinced, Sir, that you have laid to my charge things which I know not? I do not gravely tell you (as much anenthusiastas you over and over affirm me to be) “That Isensibly feel(inyoursense) the motions of the Holy Spirit.” Much less do I “make this, any more than convulsions, agonies, howlings, roarings, and violent contorsions of the body,” either “Certain signs of mens being in a state of salvation,” or “necessary in order thereunto.” You might with equal justice and truth inform the world, and the worshipful the magistrates ofNewcastle, that I makeseeing the wind, orfeelingthe light, necessary to salvation.
Neither do I “confound theextraordinarywith theordinaryoperations of the Spirit.” Andas to your last enquiry, “What is the best proof of our being led by the Spirit?” I have no exception to that just and scriptural answer, which you yourself have given, “A thorough change and renovation of mind and heart, and the leading a new and holy life.”
4. “That I confound theextraordinarywith theordinaryoperations of the Spirit, and therefore am anenthusiast,” is also strongly urged, in a charge delivered to his clergy, and lately published by the Lord Bishop ofLitchfieldandCoventry.
An extract of the former part of this, I subjoin, in his Lordship’s words.
“I cannot think it improper to obviate the contagion, of thoseenthusiasticalpretensions, that have lately betrayed whole multitudes, either into presumption or melancholy.Enthusiasmindeed when detected, is apt to create infidelity; and infidelity is so shocking a thing, that many rather run into the other extreme, and take refuge inenthusiasm. But infidelity andenthusiasmseem now to act in concert against our established religion. As infidelity has been sufficiently opposed, I shall now lay before you the weakness of thoseenthusiasticalpretensions.” page 1, 2.
Now to confute effectually, and strike at the root of thoseenthusiasticalpretensions,
“First, I shall shew, that it is necessary to lay down some method for distinguishing real from pretended inspiration.” page 3, 5.
“Many expressions occur in thenew Testament, concerning the operations of the holy Spirit. But men of anenthusiasticaltemper, have confounded passages of a quite different nature, and have jumbled together those that relate to theextraordinaryoperations of the Spirit, with those that relate only to hisordinaryinfluences. It is therefore necessary to use some method for separating those passages, relating to the operations of the Spirit, that have been so misapplied to the service ofenthusiasticalpretenders.” Page 5, 6, 7.
“I proceed therefore to shew,
“Secondly, That a distinction is to be made between those passages of scripture about the blessed Spirit that peculiarly belong to the primitive church, and those that relate to Christians in all ages.” Page 7.
“The exigencies of the apostolical age required themiraculousgifts of the Spirit. But these soon ceased. When therefore we meet in the scripture with an account of thoseextraordinarygifts, and likewise with an account of hisordinaryoperations, we must distinguish the one from the other. And that not only for our own satisfaction, but as a means to stop the growth ofenthusiasm.” Page 8, 9, 10.
“And such a distinction ought to be made, by the best methods of interpreting the scriptures: which most certainly are an attentive consideration of the occasion and scope of those passages,in concurrence with the general sense of the primitive church.” page 11.
“I propose, Thirdly, to specify some of the chief passages of scripture, that are misapplied by modernEnthusiasts, and to shew that they are to be interpretedchiefly, if not only, of the apostolical church; and that they very little, if at all relate, to the present state of Christians.” page 12.
“I begin, says your Lordship, with the original promise of the Spirit, as made by our Lord a little before he left the world.”
I must take the liberty to stop your Lordship on the threshold. I deny this original promise of the Spirit. I expect his assistance, in virtue of many promises, some hundred years prior to this.
If you say, “However this isthe originalor firstpromise of the Spirit, in the new Testament.” No, my Lord; those words were spoken long before:he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.
Will you reply? “Well, but this is the original promisemade by ourLord.” I answer, not so neither, for it was before this, Jesus himselfstood and cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink, he that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. And this he spake of the Spirit, which they should receive who believed on him(♦οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν). If I mistake not, this may more justly be termed,ourLord’soriginal promise of the Spirit. And who will assert, that this is to be interpretedchiefly, if not onlyof the apostolical church?”