A farther APPEAL To MEN of REASON and RELIGION.

Let the righteous smite me friendly and reprove me.

Psalms CXLI. 5.

PART I.

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 repentance², 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.

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.”

“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.

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?”

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.”

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.

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. Peter coming 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 as Peter did: 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 of thy sin. Thou hast received his body to have within thee the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for to endow thee with grace, and to comfort thee with their presence. Thou hast received his body, to endow thee with everlasting righteousness, and to assure thee of 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 for thee, a perfect cleansing of thy sins, so that thou mayst say with the apostle, he loved thee and gave himself for thee. For this is to make Christ thine own, and to apply his merits unto thyself.”

Let every reasonable man now judge for himself, what is the sense of our church as to the nature of saving faith. Does it not abundantly appear, that the church of England supposes every particular believer, to have a sure confidence, that his sins are forgiven, and he himself reconciled 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 as Peter did: Not into the water; but into the bottomless pit of hell-fire?”

6. I would willingly dismiss this writer here. I had said in the 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 in the 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 in the 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: In that moment, 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 essential property 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 the properties thereof are, 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 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 hurt me. But it may yourself. And it does not at all help your cause. If you denounce against me all the curses from Genesis to the Revelation, 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 his revealing unto us the things of God, or inspiring us with good desires or tempers: whenever we mention the feeling his mighty power, working in us, according to his good pleasure: The general answer we have to expect is, “This is rank enthusiasm. So it was with the apostles and first christians. But only enthusiasts pretend to this now.”

Thus all the scriptures, abundance of which might be produced, are set aside at one stroke. And whoever cites them, as belonging to all Christians, is set down for an enthusiast.

The first tract I have seen, wrote expresly on this head, is remarkably intitled,

“The operations of the Holy Spirit imperceptible, and how men may know, 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 may all now enjoy, and know that we do enjoy, the heavenly direction of God’s Spirit.”

However, you go on, and observe that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, were granted to the first Christians only, but his ordinary graces to all Christians in all ages: Both which you then attempt to enumerate: Only suspending your discourse a little, when “some conceited enthusiasts” 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 sensible feelings or perceptions. For what communication can there be between feelings, 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, and feelings which are properties peculiar to matter.” How! Are the feelings now in question, properties peculiar to matter? The feeling of peace, joy, love? Or any feelings at 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 any sensible feelings.” You are here disproving, as you suppose, a proposition of mine. But are you sure you understand it? By feeling, I mean, being inwardly conscious of. By the operations of the Spirit, I do not mean the manner in which he operates, but the graces which he operates in a Christian. Now be pleased to produce those Scriptures which declare, “That a Christian cannot feel or perceive 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 an enthusiast as you over and over affirm me to be) “That I sensibly feel (in your sense) 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 of Newcastle, that I make seeing the wind, or feeling the light, necessary to salvation.

Neither do I “confound the extraordinary with the ordinary operations of the Spirit.” And as 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 the extraordinary with the ordinary operations of the Spirit, and therefore am an enthusiast,” is also strongly urged, in a charge delivered to his clergy, and lately published by the Lord Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry.

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 those enthusiastical pretensions, that have lately betrayed whole multitudes, either into presumption or melancholy. Enthusiasm indeed 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 in enthusiasm. But infidelity and enthusiasm seem now to act in concert against our established religion. As infidelity has been sufficiently opposed, I shall now lay before you the weakness of those enthusiastical pretensions.” page 1, 2.

Now to confute effectually, and strike at the root of those enthusiastical pretensions,

“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 the new Testament, concerning the operations of the holy Spirit. But men of an enthusiastical temper, have confounded passages of a quite different nature, and have jumbled together those that relate to the extraordinary operations of the Spirit, with those that relate only to his ordinary influences. 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 of enthusiastical pretenders.” 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 the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. But these soon ceased. When therefore we meet in the scripture with an account of those extraordinary gifts, and likewise with an account of his ordinary operations, we must distinguish the one from the other. And that not only for our own satisfaction, but as a means to stop the growth of enthusiasm.” 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 modern Enthusiasts, and to shew that they are to be interpreted chiefly, 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 is the original or first promise 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 promise made by our Lord.” I answer, not so neither, for it was before this, Jesus himself stood 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, our Lord’s original promise of the Spirit. And who will assert, that this is to be interpreted chiefly, if not only of the apostolical church?”

6. Your Lordship proceeds: “It occurs in the 14th and 16th chapters of St. John’s gospel; in which he uses these words”――in what verses, my Lord? Why is not this specified?¹ Unless to furnish your Lordship with an opportunity of doing the very things whereof you before complained, of “confounding passages of a quite contrary nature, and jumbling together those that relate to the ♦extraordinary operations of the Spirit, with those that relate to his ordinary influences?”

¹ I take it for granted, that the citation of texts in the margin, which is totally wrong, is a blunder of the printer’s.

You cite the words thus; When the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth, and he will shew you things to come. (These are nearly the words that occur, chapter xvi. verse 13.)

“And again, The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. These words occur in the 14th chapter, at the 26th verse.”

But my Lord, I want the original promise still; the original (I mean) of those made in this very discourse. Indeed your margin tells us, where it is, (chapter xiv. verse 16.) but the words appear not. Taken together with the context they run thus:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever:

Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knowest him. Chapter xiv. verses 15, 16, 17.

My Lord, suffer me to enquire, why you slipt over this text? Was it not (I appeal to the Searcher of your heart!) because you was conscious to yourself, that it would necessarily drive you to that unhappy dilemma, either to assert that for ever, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, meant only sixty or seventy years; or to allow, that the text must be interpreted of the ordinary operations of the Spirit, in all future ages of the church.

And indeed that the promise in this text belongs to all Christians, evidently appears, not only from your Lordship’s own concession, and from the text itself, (for who can deny, that this Comforter or paraclete is now given to all them that believe?) but also from the preceding, as well as following, words. The preceding are, If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father—none surely can doubt, but these belong to all Christians in all ages. The following words are, Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive. True; the world cannot; but all Christians can, and will receive him for ever.

6. The second promise of the Comforter, made in this chapter, together with its context, stands thus:

Judas saith unto him (not Iscariot) Lord, how is it that thou will manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Verse 22.

Jesus answered and said unto him, if any man love me, he will keep my word. And my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Verse 23.

He that loveth me not, keepeth not my word: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. Verse 24.

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet with you. Verse 25.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Verse 26.

Now, How does your Lordship prove that this promise belongs only to the primitive church? Why, 1. You say, “It is very clear from the bare recital of the words.” I apprehend not. But this is the very question, which is not to be begged, but proved. 2. You say, “The Spirit’s bringing all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them, cannot possibly be applied to any other persons but the apostles.” “Cannot be applied!” This is a flat begging the question again, which I cannot give up without better reasons. 3. “The gifts of prophecy and of being guided into all truth, and taught all things, can be applied only to the apostles, and those of that age who were immediately inspired.” Here your Lordship, in order the more plausibly to beg the question again, “Jumbles together the extraordinary with the ordinary operations of the Spirit.” The gift of prophecy, we know, is one of his extraordinary operations; but there is not a word of it in this text: nor, therefore ought it to be “confounded with his ordinary operations,” such as the being guided into all truth, (all that is necessary to salvation) and taught all (necessary) things, in a due use of the means he hath ordained. Verse 26.

In the same manner, namely, in a serious and constant use of proper means, I believe the assistance of the Holy Ghost is given to all Christians, to bring all things needful to their remembrance, whatsoever Christ hath spoken to them in his word. So that I see no occasion to grant, without some kind of proof, (especially considering the occasion of this, and the scope of the preceding verses) that even “this promise cannot possibly be applied to any other persons but the apostles.”

7. In the same discourse of our Lord we have a third promise of the Comforter, the whole clause runs thus:

If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you. Chapter xvi. verse 7.

And when he is come, he will reprove (or convince) the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. Verse 8.

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more:

Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged; verses 9, 10, 11.

I have yet many things to say unto you; but ye cannot bear them now: (Verse 12.) but when he shall come, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth――And he will shew you things to come. Verse 13.

There is only one sentence here which has not already been considered, He will shew you things to come.

And this, it is granted, relates to the gift of prophecy, one of the extraordinary operations of the Spirit.

The general conclusion which your Lordship draws, is exprest in these words. “Consequently all pretensions to the Spirit, in the proper sense of the words of this promise (i. e. of these several texts of St. John) are vain and insignificant, as they are claimed by modern Enthusiasts.” And in the end of the same paragraph you add, “None but the ordinary operations of the Spirit are to be now expected, since those that are of a miraculous (or extraordinary) kind are NOT PRETENDED TO, even by modern Enthusiasts.”

My Lord, this is surprizing. I read it over and over, before I could credit my own eyes. I verily believe this one clause, with unprejudiced persons, will be an answer to the whole book. You have been vehemently crying out all along against those enthusiastical pretenders; nay, the very design of your book, as you openly declare, “was to stop the growth of their Enthusiasm; who have had the assurance (as you positively affirm, page 6,) to claim to themselves the extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit.” And here you as positively affirm, that those extraordinary operations “are not pretended to by them at all!”

8. Yet your Lordship proceeds, “The next passage of scripture, I shall mention as peculiarly belonging to the primitive times, though misapplied to the present state of Christians by modern Enthusiasts, is what relates to the testimony of the Spirit, and praying by the Spirit, in the 8th chapter of the epistle to the Romans.” Page 16.

I believe it incumbent upon me thoroughly to weigh the force of your Lordship’s reasoning on this head. You begin, “After St. Paul had treated of that spiritual principle in Christians, which enables them to mortify the deeds of the body—he says, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. This makes the distinction of a true Christian, particularly in opposition to the Jews.” I apprehend it is just here, that ♦your Lordship turns out of the way, when you say, “particularly in opposition to the Jews.” Such a particular opposition I cannot allow, till some stronger proof is produced, than St. Paul’s occasionally mentioning six verses before, “the imperfection of the Jewish law.”

Yet your Lordship’s mind is so full of this, that after repeating the 14th and 15th verses (as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God: for ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear: but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!) you add, “in the former part of this verse, the apostle shews again the imperfection of the Jewish law.” This also calls for proof: otherwise, it will not be allowed, that he here speaks of the Jewish law at all: not, tho’ we grant that “the Jews were subject to the fear of death, and lived in consequence of it, in a state of bondage.” For are not all unbelievers, as ♦well as the Jews, more or less, in the same fear and bondage?

Your Lordship goes on, “In the latter part of the verse he shews the superiority of the Christian law to that of the Jews.” Page 18. Where is the proof, my Lord? How does it appear, that he is speaking either of the Christian or Jewish law, in those words, Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father? However you infer, “Christians then are the adopted sons of God, in contradistinction to the Jews, as the former had the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which none of the latter had at that time: and the body of the Jews never had.” No, nor the body of the Christians neither. So that if this be a ♦proof against the Jews, it is the very same against the Christians.

I must observe farther on the preceding words, 1. That your Lordship begins here, to take the word Christians in a new and peculiar sense, for the whole body of the then Christian Church: 2. That it is a bad inference, “as, or because they had the gifts of the Holy Ghost, therefore they were the sons of God.” On the one hand, if they were the children of God, it was not, because they had gifts. On the other, a man may have all those gifts, and yet be a child of the devil.