Chapter VII: Part I (1)

IN a former treatise I declared, in the plainest manner I could, both my principles and practice; and answered some of the most important, as well as the most common objections to each. But I have not yet delivered my own soul. I believe it is still incumbent upon me to answer other objections, particularly such as have been urged by those who are esteemed religious or reasonable men.

These partly relate to the _doctrines_ I teach, partly to my _manner_ of teaching them, and partly to the _effects_ which are supposed to follow from teaching these doctrines in this manner.

I. 1. I will briefly mention what those doctrines are, before I consider the objections against them. Now all I teach respects either the nature and condition of _justification_, the nature and condition of _salvation_, the nature of justifying and saving _faith_, or the _Author_ of faith and salvation.

2. First, The nature of justification. It sometimes means, our acquittal at the last day¹. But this is altogether out of the present question: that justification whereof our articles and homilies speak, meaning present forgiveness, pardon of sins, and consequently acceptance with God: who therein, _declares his righteousness_ or mercy, by or _for the remission of the sins that are past_, saying, _I will be merciful to thy unrighteousness, and thine iniquities I will remember no more_.²

¹ Matthew xii. 37.

² Romans iii. 25.

I believe, the condition of this, is faith¹: I mean, not only, that without faith, we cannot be justified; but also, that as soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.

¹ Romans iv. 5. &c.

Good works follow this faith¹, but cannot go before it: much less can sanctification, which implies, a continued course of good works, springing from holiness of heart. *But it is allowed, that entire sanctification goes before our justification at the last day.²

¹ Luke vi. 43.

² Hebrews xii. 14.

*It is allowed also, that repentance¹ and _fruits meet for repentance_², go before faith. Repentance _absolutely must_ go before faith: fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance, I mean, conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment: and by _fruits meet for repentance_, forgiving our brother³, ceasing from evil⁴, doing good, using the ordinances of God⁵, and in general obeying him according to the measure of grace which we have received⁶. But these, I cannot as yet, term _good works_; because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.

¹ Mark i. 15.

² Matthew iii. 8.

³ Matthew vi. 14, 15.

⁴ Luke iii. 4, 9. &c.

⁵ Matthew vii. 7.

⁶ Matthew xxv. 29.

3. By salvation I mean, not barely, according to the vulgar notion, deliverance from hell, or going to heaven: but a present deliverance from sin, a restoration of the soul to its primitive health, its original purity; a recovery of the divine nature; the renewal of our souls after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness, in justice, mercy, and truth. This implies all holy and heavenly tempers, and by consequence all holiness of conversation.

Now, if by salvation we mean, a present salvation from sin, we cannot say, holiness is the condition of it. For it is the thing itself. Salvation, in this sense, and holiness are synonymous terms. We must therefore say, _We are saved by faith_. Faith is the sole condition of this salvation. For without faith we cannot be thus saved. But whosoever believeth, is saved already.

*Without faith we cannot be thus saved. For we cannot rightly serve God, unless we love him. And we cannot love him, unless we know him; neither can we know God, unless by faith. Therefore _salvation by faith_, is only in other words, the love of God by the knowledge of God: or, the recovery of the image of God, by a true spiritual acquaintance with him.

4. Faith, in general, is, a divine, supernatural ἔλεγχος¹ of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past, future or spiritual. _Justifying faith_ implies, not only a divine ἔλεγχος, that God _was in_ Christ, _reconciling the world unto himself_, but a sure trust and confidence, that Christ died for _my_ sins, that he loved _me_ and gave himself for _me_. And the moment a penitent sinner believes this, God pardons and absolves him.

¹ Evidence, or Conviction.

And as soon as his pardon or justification is witnessed to him by the Holy Ghost, he is saved. He loves God and all mankind. He has _the mind that was in_ Christ, and power to _walk as he also walked_. From that time (unless he make shipwreck of the faith) salvation gradually increases in his soul. For _so is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground.――And it springeth up, first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear._

5. The first sowing of this seed, I cannot conceive to be other than instantaneous: whether I consider experience, or the word of God, or the very nature of the thing――however I contend not for a circumstance, but the substance; if you can attain it another way, do. Only see that you do attain it; for if you fall short, you perish everlastingly.

*This beginning of that vast, inward change, is usually termed _The new birth_. Baptism is the outward sign of this inward grace, which is supposed by our church, to be given with, and through that sign to all infants, and to those of riper years, if they repent and believe the gospel. But how extremely idle are the common disputes on this head? I tell a sinner, “You must be born again.” “No, say you, he was born again in baptism. Therefore he cannot be born again now.” Alas! What trifling is this? What if he was _then_ a child of God? He is _now_ manifestly a child of the devil. For the works of his father he doth. Therefore do not play upon words. He _must_ go through an entire change of heart. In one not yet baptized, you yourself would call that change, _the new birth_. In him, call it what you will; but remember mean time, that if either he or you die without it, your baptism will be so far from profiting you, that it will greatly increase your damnation.

6. The author of faith and salvation is God alone. It is he that works in us both to will and to do. He is the sole giver of every good gift, and the sole author of every good work. There is no more of power than of merit in man; but as all merit is in the Son of God, in what he has done and suffered for us, so all power is in the Spirit of God. And therefore every man, in order to believe unto salvation, must receive the Holy Ghost. This is essentially necessary to every Christian, not in order to his working miracles, but in order to faith, peace, joy, and love, the ordinary fruits of the Spirit.

Although no man on earth can explain the _particular manner_, wherein the Spirit of God works on the soul, yet whosoever has these fruits, cannot but know and _feel_ that God has wrought them in his heart.

Sometimes, he acts more particularly on the understanding, opening or _inlightening_ it, (as the scripture speaks) and _revealing_, unveiling, discovering to us _the deep things of God_.

Sometimes he acts on the wills and affections of men; withdrawing them from evil, inclining them to good, _inspiring_, (breathing as it were) good thoughts into them: so it has frequently been exprest, by an easy, natural metaphor, strictly analogous to רוח, πνεῦμα, _spiritus_, and the words used in most modern tongues also, to denote the third person in the ever-blessed Trinity. But however it be exprest, it is certain, all true faith, and the whole work of salvation, every good thought, word and work, is altogether by the operation of _the Spirit of God_.

II. 1. I come now to consider the principal objections, which have lately been made against these doctrines.

I know nothing material which has been objected, as to the nature of justification: but many persons seem to be very confused, in their thoughts, concerning it, and speak as if they had never heard of any justification, antecedent to that of the last day. To clear up this, there needs only a closer inspection of our articles and homilies; wherein justification is always taken, for the present remission of our sins.

But many are the objections which have been warmly urged, against the condition of justification, faith alone: particularly in two treatises, the former intitled, _The notions of the Methodists_ fully _disproved_: the second, _The notions of the Methodists_ farther _disproved_. In both of which it is vehemently _affirmed_, 1. That this is not a scriptural doctrine. 2. That it is not the doctrine of the church of _England_.

It will not be needful to name the former of these any more; seeing there is neither one text produced therein, to prove this doctrine unscriptural, nor one sentence from the articles or homilies, to prove it contrary to the doctrine of the church. But so much of the latter as relates to the merits of the _cause_, I will endeavour to consider calmly. As to what is _personal_, I leave it as it is. _God be merciful to me, a sinner!_

2. To prove this doctrine unscriptural, That “Faith alone is the condition of justification,” you alledge, That “Sanctification, according to scripture, must go before it:” To evince which, you quote the following texts, which I leave as I find them: _Go, disciple all nations――teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded them._¹ _He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved._² _Preach repentance and remission of sins._³ _Repent and be baptized every one of you, for the remission of sins._⁴ _Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out._⁵ _By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified._⁶ You add, “St. _Paul_ taught _Repentance toward God, and faith toward our_ Lord Jesus Christ⁷; and calls _Repentance from dead works, and faith toward God, first principles_.⁸”

¹ _Matthew xxviii. 19, 20._

² _Mark xvi. 16._

³ _Luke xxiv. 47._

⁴ _Acts ii. 38._

⁵ ♦_Acts iii. 19._

⁶ _Hebrews x. 14._

⁷ _Acts xx. 21._

⁸ _Hebrews vi. 1._

♦ “C.” replaced with “Acts”

You subjoin, “_But ye are washed_, says he, _but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified_. By _washed_ is meant their baptism; and by their baptism is meant, first their sanctification, and then their justification.” This is a flat begging the question; you take for granted, the very point which you ought to prove. “St. _Peter_ also, you say, affirms, That _baptism doth save us_ or justify us.” Again, you beg the question: you take for granted what I utterly deny, viz. That _save_ and _justify_ are here synonymous terms. ’Till this is proved, you can draw no inference at all; for you have no foundation whereon to build.

I conceive these and all the scriptures which can be quoted to prove sanctification antecedent to justification, (if they do not relate to our final justification) prove only (what I have never denied) that repentance, or conviction of sin, and fruits meet for repentance, precede that faith, whereby we are justified: but by no means, that the love of God, or any branch of true holiness, must or can precede faith.

3. It is objected, Secondly, That justification by faith alone, is not the doctrine of the church of _England_.

“You believe, says the writer above-mentioned, that no good work can be previous to justification, nor consequently a condition of it. But God be praised, our church has no where delivered such _abominable_ doctrine.” _Page 14._

“The clergy contend for inward holiness, as previous to the first justification――this is the doctrine they universally inculcate, and which you cannot oppose without contradicting the doctrine of our church.” _Page 26._

“All your strongest persuasives to the love of God, will not blanch over the deformity of that doctrine, that men may be justified――by faith alone――Unless you publicly recant this _horrid_ doctrine, your faith is vain.” _Page 27._

“If you will vouchsafe to purge out this _venomous_ part of your principles, in which the _wide, essential, fundamental, irreconcileable difference_, as you very justly term it, mainly consists, then there will be found so far no disagreement between you and the clergy of the church of _England_.” _ibid._

4. In order to be clearly and fully satisfied, what the doctrine of the church of _England_ is, (as it stands opposite to the doctrine of the _Antinomians_, on the one hand, and to that of _justification by works_ on the other) I will simply set down what occurs on this head, either in her Liturgy, Articles or Homilies.

“Spare thou them, O God, which _confess their faults_: restore thou them that are _penitent_, according to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord.”

“He pardoneth and absolveth all them that _truly repent_ and _unfeignedly believe_ his holy gospel.”

“Almighty God, who dost forgive the sins of them that are _penitent_, create and make in us new and contrite hearts; that we _worthily lamenting our sins_ and _acknowledging our wretchedness_, may obtain of thee perfect remission and forgiveness, thro’ Jesus Christ our Lord.” Collect for _Ash-Wednesday_.

“Almighty God――hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with _hearty repentance and true faith_ turn unto him.” _Communion office._

“Our Lord Jesus Christ hath left power to absolve all sinners who _truly repent_ and _believe_ in him.” _Visitation of the sick._

“Give him unfeigned _repentance_ and stedfast _faith_, that his sins may be blotted out.” _ibid._

“He is a merciful receiver of all true, _penitent_ sinners, and is ready to pardon us, if we come unto him with _faithful repentance_.” _Commination office._

Infants indeed our church supposes to be justified in baptism, altho’ they cannot then either _believe_ or _repent_. But she expresly requires both _repentance_ and _faith_, in those who come to be baptized when they are of riper years.

*As earnestly therefore as our church inculcates justification by faith alone, she nevertheless supposes _repentance_ to be previous to faith, and _fruits meet for repentance_: yea, and universal holiness to be previous to final justification, as evidently appears from the following words:

*“Let us beseech him――that the rest of our life may be pure and holy, so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy.” _Absolution._

“May we seriously apply our hearts to that holy and heavenly wisdom here, which may in the end bring us to life everlasting.” _Visitation of the sick._

“Raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness,――that at the last day we may be found acceptable in thy sight.” _Burial office._

“If we from henceforth walk in his ways,――seeking always his glory, Christ will set us on his right hand.” _Commination office._

5. We come next to the articles of our church: the former part of the ninth runs thus:

_Of Original or Birth-Sin._

“Original sin――is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man――whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit: and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.”

ARTICLE X. _Of Free-Will._

“The condition of man after the fall of _Adam_ is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.”

ARTICLE XI. _Of the Justification of Man._

“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification.”

I believe this article relates to the _meritorious cause_ of justification, rather than to the _condition_ of it. On this therefore I do not build any thing concerning it, but on those that follow.

ARTICLE XII. _Of Good Works._

“Albeit that good works which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins――yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith: insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree may be known by the fruit.”

We are taught here, 1. That _good works_ in general, _follow after_ justification. 2. That they _spring out of_ a true and lively _faith_, that faith whereby we are justified: 3. That true, justifying faith may be as evidently known by them, as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Does it not follow, that the supposing any _good work_ to _go before_ justification, is full as absurd as the supposing an apple or any other fruit to grow before the tree?

But let us hear the church, speaking yet more plainly.

ARTICLE XIII. _Of Works done before Justification._

“Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, (_i. e._ before justification, as the title expresses it) are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesu Christ――Yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not they have the nature of sin.”

Now, if all works done before justification, have the nature of sin, (both because they spring not of faith in Christ, and because they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done) what becomes of sanctification previous to justification? It is utterly excluded: seeing whatever is previous to justification, is not good or holy, but evil and sinful.

*Altho’ therefore our church does frequently assert, that we ought to repent and bring forth fruits meet for repentance, if ever we would attain to that faith, whereby alone we are justified: yet she never asserts (and here the hinge of the question turns) that these are _good works_, so long as they are previous to justification. Nay she expressly asserts the direct contrary, viz. That they have all the nature of sin. So that this “Horrid, scandalous, wicked, abominable, venomous, blasphemous doctrine,” is nevertheless the doctrine of the church of _England_.

6. It remains, to consider what occurs in the homilies, first with regard to the _meritorious cause_ of our justification, agreeable to the 11th, and then with regard to the _condition_ of it, agreeable to the 12th and 13th articles.

“These things must go together in our justification; upon God’s part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, the satisfaction of God’s justice; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ.” _Homily on salvation, part I._

“So that the grace of God doth not shut ♦out the justice (or righteousness) of God in our justification; but only shutteth out the righteousness of man――――as to _deserving_ our justification.”

♦ “our” replaced with “out”

“And therefore St. _Paul_ declareth nothing on the behalf of man, concerning his justification but only a true faith.”

*“And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, to be join’d with faith (that is, _afterwards_; see below) in every man that is justified――――neither doth faith shut out the righteousness of our good works, necessarily to be done _afterwards_. But it excludeth them so, that we may not do them to this intent to be made just (or, to be justified) by doing them.”

“That we are _justified by faith alone_, is spoken, to take away clearly all _merit_, of our works, and wholly to ascribe the _merit and deserving_ of our justification unto Christ only.” _ibid. Part II._

“The true meaning of this saying, we be justified by faith only, is this, we be justified by the _merits_ of Christ only, and not of our own works.” _ibid. Part III._

7. Thus far touching the _meritorious cause_ of our justification; referred to in the 11th article. The 12th and 13th are a summary of what now follows, with regard to the _condition_ of it.

“Of (justifying) true faith, three things are specially to be noted, 1. That it bringeth forth good works. 2. That without it, can no good works be done. 3. What good works it doth bring forth.” _Sermon on faith. Part I._

“Without faith can no good work be done, accepted and pleasant unto God. For _as a branch cannot bear fruit of itself_, saith our Saviour Christ, _except it abide in the vine, so cannot you, except you abide in me_. Faith giveth life to the soul; and they be as much dead to God that lack faith, as they be to the world, whose bodies lack souls. Without faith all that is done of us, is but dead before God. Even as a picture is but a dead representation of the thing itself, so be the works of all unfaithful (unbelieving) persons before God. They be but shadows of lively and good things, and not good things indeed. For true faith doth give life to the works, and without faith no work is good before God.” _ibid. Part III._

“We must set no good works before faith, nor think that before faith a man may do any good works. For such works are as the course of an horse that runneth out of the way, which taketh great labour, but to no purpose.” _ibid._

“Without faith we have no virtues, but only the shadows of them. All the life of them that lack the true faith is sin.” _ibid._

“As men first have life, and after be nourished, so must our faith go before, and after be nourished with good works. And life may be without nourishment, but nourishment cannot be without life.” _Homily of works annexed to faith. Part I._

“I can shew a man, that by faith without works lived and came to heaven. But without faith never man had life. The thief on the cross only believed, and the most merciful God justified him. Truth it is, if he had lived and not regarded faith and the works thereof, he should have lost his salvation again. But this I say, faith by itself saved him. But works by themselves never justified any man.”

“Good works go not before, in him which shall afterwards be justified. But good works do follow after, when a man is first justified.” _Homily on fasting. Part I._

8. From the whole tenor then of her liturgy, articles and homilies, the doctrine of the church of _England_ appears to be this:

1. That no _good work_ properly so called, can _go before_ justification:

2. That _no degree_ of true sanctification can be previous to it.

3. That as the _meritorious cause_ of justification is, the life and death of Christ; so the _condition_ of it, is faith. Faith alone; and

4. That both inward and outward holiness, are consequent on this faith, and are the ordinary, stated condition, of final justification.

9. And what more can _you_ desire, who have hitherto opposed _justification by faith alone_, merely upon a principle of conscience; because you was zealous for holiness and good works? Do I not effectually secure these from contempt, at the same time that I defend the doctrines of the church? I not only allow, but vehemently contend, that none shall ever enter into glory, who is not holy on earth, as well in heart, as _in all manner of conversation_. I cry aloud, _Let all that have believed, be careful to maintain good works_: and, _Let every one that nameth the name of Christ, depart from all iniquity_. I exhort even those who are conscious they do not believe, _Cease to do evil, learn to do well: the kingdom of heaven is at hand_; therefore _repent, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance_. Are not these directions the very same in substance, which you yourself would give to persons so circumstanced? What means then this endless _strife of words_? Or, _what doth your arguing prove?_

10. Many of those who are perhaps as zealous of good works, as you, think I have allowed you too much.――Nay, my brethren, but how can we help allowing it, if we allow the scriptures to be from God? For is it not written, and do not you yourselves believe, _Without holiness no man shall see the Lord_? And how then, without fighting about words, can we deny, that holiness is a condition of final acceptance? And, as to the first acceptance or pardon, does not all experience as well as scripture prove, that no man ever yet truly _believed the gospel_, who did not first _repent_? That none was ever yet truly _convinced of righteousness_, who was not first _convinced of sin_? Repentance therefore in _this_ sense, we cannot deny to be necessarily previous to faith. Is it not equally undeniable, that the running back into known, wilful sin, (suppose it were drunkenness or uncleanness) stifles that repentance or conviction? And can that repentance come to any good issue in his soul, who resolves not to forgive his brother? Or who obstinately refrains from what God convinces him is right, whether it be prayer or hearing his word? Would you scruple yourself to tell one of these, “Why, if you _will_ thus drink away all conviction, how should you ever truly know your want of Christ? Or consequently, believe in him?――If you _will_ not forgive your brother _his_ trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you _your_ trespasses――If you will not ask, how can you expect to receive?――If you _will_ not hear, how can _faith come by hearing_? It is plain, you _grieve the Spirit of God_; you _will not_ have him to reign over you. Take care that he does not utterly depart from you. For _unto him that hath, shall be given: but from him that hath not_, i. e. uses it not, _shall be taken away, even that which he hath_.” Would you scruple, on a proper occasion to say this? You could not scruple it, if you believe the bible. But in saying this, you allow all which I have said, viz. That previous to justifying faith, there _must_ be repentance, and if opportunity permit, _Fruits meet for repentance_.

*11. And yet I allow you this, that altho’ both repentance and the fruits thereof are in _some sense_ necessary before justification, yet neither the one nor the other is necessary in the _same sense_, or in the _same degree_ with faith. Not in the _same degree_. For in whatever moment a man believes (in the Christian sense of the word) he is justified, his sins are blotted out, _his faith is counted to him for righteousness_. But it is not so, at whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any, or all the fruits of repentance. Faith alone therefore justifies; which repentance alone does not; much less any outward work. And consequently, none of these are necessary to justification, in the _same degree_ with faith.

*Nor in the _same sense_. For none of these has so direct, immediate a relation to justification as faith. This is _proximately_ necessary thereto; repentance, _remotely_, as it is necessary to the increase or continuance of faith. And even in this sense, these are only necessary, on supposition――――if there be time and opportunity for them: for in many instances there is not: but God cuts short his work, and faith prevents the fruits of repentance. So that the general proportion is not overthrown, but clearly established by these concessions; and we conclude still, both on the authority of scripture and the church, that faith alone is the proximate condition of justification.

III. 1. I was once inclined to believe that none would openly object, against what I had any where said of the _nature of salvation_. How greatly then was I surprised some months ago, when I was shewn a kind of circular letter, which one¹ of those whom _the Holy Ghost hath made overseers_ of his church, I was informed, had sent to all the clergy of his diocese!

¹ The (then) Archbishop of _York_.

Part of it ran (nearly, if not exactly) thus:

“There is great indiscretion in preaching up a sort of religion, as the true and only Christianity, which in their own account of it, consists in an enthusiastic ardor, to be understood or attained by very few, and not to be practised without breaking in upon the common duties of life.”

O my Lord, what manner of words are these! Supposing candour and love out of the question, are they the words of truth? I dare stake my life upon it, there is not one true clause in all this paragraph.

The propositions contained therein, are these:

1. That the religion I preach, consists in enthusiastic ardor:

2. That it can be attained by very few:

3. That it can be understood by very few:

4. That it cannot be practised without breaking in upon the common duties of life.

5. And that all this may be proved by my own account of it.

I earnestly intreat your grace, to review my own account of it, as it stands in any of my former writings; or to consider the short account which is given in this. And if you can thence make good any one of those propositions, I do hereby promise before God and the world, that I will never preach more.

At present I do not well understand what your grace means by “An enthusiastic ardor.” Surely you do not mean, the love of God! No, not though a poor, pardoned sinner should _carry it so far_, as to love the Lord his God, with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his strength! But this alone is the _ardor_ which I _preach up_, as the foundation of _the true and only Christianity_. I pray God so to fill your whole heart therewith, that you may praise him for ever and ever.

But why should your grace believe, that the love of God, _can be attained by very few_? Or, that it _can be understood by very few_? All who attain it, understand it well. And did not he who is loving to every man design, that every man should attain true love? O that all would know in this their day, the things that make for their peace!

And _cannot_ the love both of God and our neighbour _be practised, without breaking in upon the common duties of life_? Nay, can any of the common duties of life, be rightly practised without them? I apprehend not. I apprehend I am then laying the true, the only foundation for all those duties, when I preach _Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself_.

2. With this letter was sent (I believe to every clergyman in the diocese) the pamphlet intitled, _Observations on the conduct and behaviour of a certain sect, usually distinguished by the name of Methodists_. It has been generally supposed to be wrote by a person, who is every way my superior. Perhaps one reason why he did not inscribe his name was, that his greatness might not make me afraid: and that I might have liberty to stand, as it were, on even ground, while I answer for myself.

In considering, therefore, such parts of these _observations_, as naturally fall in my way, I will take that method which, I believe, the author desires, using no ceremony at all: but speaking as to an equal, that it may the more easily be discerned, where the truth lies.

The first query relating to doctrine, is this.

“Whether notions in religion may not be heightened to such _extremes_, as to lead _some_ into a disregard of religion itself, through despair of attaining such exalted heights? And whether _others_ who have imbibed those notions, may not be led by them, into a disregard and disesteem of the common duties and offices of life? To such a degree, at least, as is inconsistent with that attention to them, and that diligence in them, which Providence has made necessary to the well-being of private families and public societies, and which christianity does not only require in all stations, and in all conditions, but declares at the same time, that the performance even of the lowest offices in life, _as unto God_, (whose providence has placed people in their several stations) is truly a _serving of_ Christ, and will not fail of its reward in the next world?”

You have interwoven so many particulars in this general question, that I must divide and answer them one by one.

_Q._ 1. Whether notions in religion may not be heightened to such _extremes_ as to lead _some_ into a disregard of religion itself?

_A._ They may. But that I have _so_ heightened them, it lies upon you to prove.

_Q._ 2. Whether _others_ may not be led into a disregard of religion, through despair of attaining such exalted heights?

_A._ What heights? The loving GOD with all our heart? I believe, this is the most exalted height in man or angel. But I have not heard, that any have been led into a disregard of religion, through despair of attaining this.

_Q._ 3. Whether _others_ who have imbibed these notions, may not be led by them, into a disregard and disesteem, of the _common_ duties and offices of life?

_A._ My notions are, “True religion is the loving God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves; and in that love abstaining from all evil, and doing all possible good to all men.” Now, it is not possible in the nature of things, that any should be _led by these notions_, into either a disregard or disesteem of the _common_ duties and offices of life.

_Q._ 4. But may they not be _led by them_ into such a degree at least, of disregard for the common duties of life, as is inconsistent with that attention to them, and diligence in them, which Providence has made necessary?

_A._ No. Quite the reverse. They lead men to discharge all those duties with the strictest diligence and closest attention.

_Q._ 5. Does not christianity require this attention and diligence in all stations and in all conditions?

_A._ Yes.

_Q._ 6. Does it not declare, that the performance even of the lowest offices of life, _as unto God_, is truly _a serving of_ Christ? and will not fail of its reward in the next world?

_A._ It does. But whom are you confuting? Not me. For this is the doctrine I preach continually.

3. Query the second. “Whether the enemy of christianity may not find his account, in carrying christianity, which was designed for a rule to _all_ stations and _all_ conditions, to such _heights_ as make it fairly practicable by a _very few_, in comparison, or rather by none?”

I answer, 1. The _height_ to which we carry christianity (as was but now observed) is this, _Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself_. 2. The enemy of christianity cannot find his account, in our carrying it to _this height_. 3. You will not say on reflection, that christianity, even in this height, is practicable by _very few_, or rather _by none_: You yourself will confess, this _is_ a rule (as God designed it should) for _all_ stations, and _all_ conditions.

Query the third. “Whether, in particular, the carrying the doctrine of justification _by faith alone_ to such a height, as not to allow that a sincere and careful observance of moral duties is so much as a _condition_ of our acceptance with God, and of our being justified in his sight: Whether this, I say, does not naturally lead people to a _disregard_ of those duties, and a low esteem of them; or rather to think them no part of the christian religion?”

I trust justification _by faith alone_, has been so explained above, as to secure, not only a high esteem, but also a careful and sincere observance of all moral duties.

4. Query the fourth. “Whether a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid by good men in a serious and composed way, does not answer the true ends of devotion, and is not a better evidence of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, than those sudden agonies, roarings, screamings, tremblings, droppings down, ravings, and madnesses, into which their hearers have been cast?”

I must answer this ♦query likewise part by part.

♦ “querry” replaced with “query”

_Q._ 1. Whether a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way, by good [_i. e._ well meaning] men, does not answer the true ends of devotion?

_A._ I suppose by _devotion_ you mean public worship; by the _true ends_ of it, the love of God and man: and by a _due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way_, the going as often as we have opportunity to our parish church, and to the sacrament there administred. If so, the question is, “Whether _this attendance_ on _those offices_, does not produce the love of God and man?” I answer, sometimes it does; and sometimes it does not. I myself thus attended them for many years; and yet am conscious to myself, that during that whole time, I had no more of the love of God than a stone. And I know many hundreds, perhaps thousands of serious persons, who are ready to testify the same thing.

_Q._ 2. But is not this a better evidence of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, than those _sudden agonies_?

_A._ All these persons, as well as I, can testify also, that this is no evidence at all of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit. For some years I attended these public offices, _because I would not be punished_ for non-attendance. And many of these attended them, _because their parents did before them_, or _because they would not lose their character_. Many more, because they confounded the means with the end, and fancied this _opus operatum_ would bring them to heaven. How many thousands are now under this strong delusion? Beware, you bring not their blood on your own head?

_Q._ 3. However, does not this attendance better answer those ends, than those roarings, screamings, &c.?

I suppose you mean, “Better than an attendance on that preaching, which has often been accompanied with these.”

I answer. 1. There is no manner of need to set the one in opposition to the other: Seeing we continually exhort all who attend on our preaching, to attend the offices of the church. And they do pay a more regular attendance there, than ever they did before. 2. Their attending the church did not, in fact answer those ends at all, ’till they attended this preaching also. 3. It is the preaching of remission of sins through Jesus Christ, which alone answers the true ends of devotion. And this will always be accompanied with the co-operation of the Holy Spirit; tho’ not always with sudden agonies, roarings, screamings, tremblings, or droppings down. Indeed if God is pleased at any time to permit any of these, I cannot hinder it. Neither can this hinder the work of his Spirit in the soul: which may be carried on either with or without them. But 4. I cannot apprehend it to be any reasonable proof, That “this is not the work of God,” that a convinced sinner should _fall into an extreme agony, both of body and soul_, (Journal 3. page 26.) That another should _roar for the disquietness of her heart_, (page 40.) that others should scream or _cry with a loud and bitter cry, “What must we do to be saved?”_ (page 50.) that others should _exceedingly tremble and quake_, (page 58.) And others, in a deep sense of the majesty of God, _should fall prostrate upon the ground_. (page 59.)

Indeed by picking out one single word from a sentence, and then putting together what you had gleaned in sixty or seventy pages, you have drawn a terrible groupe, for them who look no farther than those two lines in _the observations_. But the bare addition of half a line to each word, just as it stands in the place from which you quoted it, reconciles all both to scripture and reason, and the spectre-form vanishes away.

You have taken into your account, _ravings, and madnesses too_. As instances of the former, you refer to the case of _John Haydon_, page 44. and of _Thomas Maxfield_, page 50. I wish you would calmly consider, his reasoning on that head, who is not prejudiced in my favour. “What influence sudden and sharp awakenings may have upon the body, I pretend not to explain. But I make no question _Satan_, so far as he gets power may exert himself on such occasions, partly to hinder the good work in the persons who are thus touched with the sharp arrows of conviction, and partly to disparage the work of God, as if it tended to lead people to distraction.”

For instances of madness you refer to pages 88, 90, 91, 92, 93. The words in page 88. are these:

“I could not but be under some concern, with regard to one or two persons, who were tormented in an unaccountable manner, and _seemed_ to be indeed _lunatic_ as well as _sore vexed_――Soon after I was sent for to one of these, who was so strangely _torn of the devil_, that I almost wondered her relations did not say, much religion _hath made thee mad_. We prayed God to _bruise Satan_ under her feet. Immediately _we had the petition we asked of him_. She cried out vehemently ‘He is gone, he is gone,’ and was filled with the Spirit of _love, and of a sound mind_. I have seen her many times since, strong in the Lord. When I asked abruptly, ‘What do you desire now?’ She answered, ‘Heaven.’ I asked, ‘What is in your heart?’ She replied, ‘God.’ I asked, ‘But how is your heart when any thing provokes you?’ She said, ‘By the grace of God, I am not provoked at any thing. All the things of this world pass by me as shadows.’ Are these the words of one that is beside herself? Let any man of reason judge!”

Your next instance, page 90. stands thus:

“About noon I came to _Usk_, where I preached to a small company of poor people, on, _The Son of man is come, to save that which is lost_. One grey-headed man wept and trembled exceedingly: and another who was there (I have since heard) as well as two or three who were at the _Devauden, are gone quite distracted_; that is (my express words that immediately follow, specifying what it was which _some accounted distraction_) ‘They mourn and refuse to be comforted, until they have _redemption through his blood_.’”

If _you_ think the case mentioned, pages 92, 93. to be another instance of madness, I contend not. It was because I did not understand that uncommon case, that I prefaced it with this reflection, “The fact I nakedly relate, and leave every man to his own judgment upon it.” Only be pleased to observe, that this _madness_, if such it was, is no more chargeable upon _me_ than upon _you_. For the subject of it had no relation to, or commerce with _me_, nor had I ever seen her before that hour.

5. Query the fifth. “Whether those exalted strains in religion, and an imagination of being already in a state of _perfection_, are not apt to lead men to spiritual pride, and to a contempt of their fellow christians; while they consider _them_ as only going on in what they call the _low_ and _imperfect_ way, (_i. e._ as growing in grace and goodness only _by degrees_) even though it appear by the _lives_ of those who are considered by them as in that _low_ and _imperfect_ way, that they are persons who are gradually working out their salvation, by their own honest endeavours, and through the ordinary assistances of God’s grace; with an humble reliance upon the merits of Christ for the pardon of their sins, and the acceptance of their sincere, though _imperfect_ services?”

I must divide this query too, but first permit me to ask, What do you mean by _those exalted strains in religion_? I have said again and again, I know of no more exalted strain, than “I will love thee, O Lord, my God:” Especially according to the propriety of _David_’s expression ארחמך יהוה. _Ex intimis visceribus diligam te, Domine._ This premised, let us go on step by step.

_Q._ 1. Whether the preaching of “loving God from our inmost bowels,” is not apt to lead men to spiritual pride, and to a contempt of their fellow Christians?

_A._ No: But so far as it takes place, it will humble them to the dust.

_Q._ 2. Whether an imagination of being already in a state of _perfection_, is not _apt to lead_ men into spiritual pride.

_A._ 1. If it be a _false_ imagination, it _is_ spiritual pride. 2. But _true_ Christian perfection is no other than humble love.

_Q._ 3. Do not men who imagine they have attained this, despise others, as only going on in what they account the _low_ and _imperfect_ way, _i. e._ as growing in grace and goodness _by degrees_.

_A._ 1. Men who _only imagine_ they have attained this, may probably despise those that are going in any way. 2. But the growing in grace and goodness by degrees, is no mark of a _low_ and _imperfect_ way. Those who are fathers in Christ, grow in grace _by degrees_, as well as the newborn babes.

_Q._ 4. Do they not despise those who are working out their salvation, with an humble reliance upon the merits of Christ for the pardon of their sins, and the acceptance of their sincere, tho’ _imperfect_ services?

_A._ 1. They who really love God, despise no man. But 2. they grieve to hear many talk of thus _relying on_ Christ, who, though perhaps they are grave, honest, moral men, yet by their own words, appear, not to love God at all; whose souls cleave to the dust, who love the world; who have no part of the mind that was in Christ.

6. Query the sixth. “Whether the same exalted strains and notions, do not tend to weaken the _natural_ and _civil_ relations among men, by leading the inferiors into whose heads those notions are infused to a disesteem of their superiors; while they consider them as in a much _lower dispensation_ than themselves; though those superiors are otherwise _sober_ and _good_ men, and regular attendants on the ordinances of religion?”

I have mentioned before, What those exalted notions are: these do not tend to weaken either the _natural_ or _civil_ relations among men; or to lead inferiors to a disesteem of their superiors, even where those superiors are neither _good_ nor _sober_ men.

Query the seventh. “Whether a _gradual_ improvement in grace and goodness is not a better foundation of comfort, and of an assurance of a gospel new-birth, than that which is founded on the doctrine of a _sudden_ and _instantaneous_ change; which, if there be any such thing, is not so easily distinguished from fancy and imagination; the workings whereof we may well suppose to be more _strong_ and _powerful_, while the person considers himself in the state of one who is admitted as a ♦candidate for such a change, and is taught in due time to expect it?”

♦ “canditate” replaced with “candidate”

Let us go one step at a time.

_Q._ 1. Whether a _gradual_ improvement in grace and goodness, is not a good foundation of comfort?

_A._ Doubtless it is, if by grace and goodness be meant the knowledge and love of God through Christ.

_Q._ 2. Whether it be not a good _foundation_ of an assurance of a gospel new-birth?

_A._ If we daily grow in this knowledge and love, it is a good _proof_ that we are born of the Spirit. But this does in no wise supersede the previous witness of God’s Spirit with ours, that we are the children of God. And this is properly the _foundation_ of the assurance of faith.

_Q._ 3. Whether this improvement is not a better foundation of comfort, and of an assurance of a gospel new-birth, than that which is founded on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change?

_A._ A better foundation than _that――That!_ What? To what substantive does this refer? According to the rules of grammar, (for all the other substantives are in the genitive case, and consequently to be considered as only parts of that which governs them) you must mean, “A better foundation than that foundation which is founded on this doctrine.” As soon as I understand the question, I will endeavour to answer it.

_Q._ 4. Can that _sudden_ and _instantaneous_ change be easily distinguished from fancy and imagination?

_A._ Just as easily as light from darkness: seeing it brings with it a peace that passeth all understanding, a joy unspeakable, full of glory, the love of God and all mankind filling the heart, and power over all sin.

_Q._ 5. May we not well suppose the workings of imagination to be more _strong_ and _powerful_ in one who is taught to expect such a change?

_A._ Perhaps we may――But still the tree is known by its fruits. And such fruits as those above-mentioned imagination was never yet strong enough to produce, nor any _power_, save that of the Almighty.

7. There is only one clause in the eighth query which falls under our present enquiry.

“They make it their _principal_ employ, wherever they go, to instil into people a few _favorite tenets_ of their own; and this with such diligence and zeal as if the whole of Christianity depended upon them, and all efforts toward the true Christian life, without a belief of those tenets, were vain and ineffectual.”

I plead guilty to this charge. I do make it my _principal_, nay, my whole employ, and that wherever I go, to instil into the people, a few _favourite tenets_. (Only be it observed, they are not _my own_, but his that sent me.) And it is undoubtedly true, that this I do, (tho’ deeply conscious of my want, both of zeal and diligence) as if the whole of Christianity depended upon them, and all efforts without them were void and vain.

I frequently sum them all up in one, _in Christ Jesus_, (_i. e._ according to his gospel) _neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love_. But many times I instil them one by one, under these, or the like expressions. _Thou shalt love the Lord thy |God| with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself_; as thy own soul; as Christ loved us. God _is love: and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in |God|, and |God| in him. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. While we have time let us do good unto all men; especially unto them that are of the houshold of faith. Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them._

These are my _favourite tenets_, and have been for many years. O that I could instil them into every soul throughout the land! Ought they not to be instilled with such diligence and zeal, as if the whole of Christianity depended upon them? For who can deny, that all efforts toward a Christian life, without more than a bare _belief_, without a thorough _experience_ and _practice_ of these, are utterly vain and ineffectual?

*8. Part of your ninth _query_ is to the same effect:

“A few young heads set up _their own schemes_, as the great standard of Christianity: and indulge _their own notions_ to such a degree, as to perplex, unhinge, terrify and distract the minds of multitudes of people, who have lived from their infancy under a gospel-ministry, and in the regular exercise of a gospel-worship. And all this, by persuading them, that they neither are, nor can be true Christians, but by adhering to _their doctrines_.”

What do you mean by _their own_ schemes? Their _own_ notions? _Their_ doctrines? Are they not _yours_ too? Are they not the schemes, the notions, the doctrines of Jesus Christ? The great, fundamental truths of his gospel? Can you deny one of them, without denying the bible?――It is hard for you to kick against the pricks!