the parts adjoining; as to persons, than you and me, Thomas Church preaching one doctrine, John Wesley, the other. Now then let us consider with meekness and fear, what have been the consequences of each doctrine ? You have preached justification by faith and works, at Battersea and St. Ann's, Westminster; while I preached justification by faith alone, near Moorfields, and at Short's Gardens. I beseech you then to consider, in the secret of your heart, how many sinners have you. converted to God? By their fruits we shall know them. This is a plain rule. By this test let them be tried. How many outwardly and habitually wicked men, have you brought to uniform habits of outward holiness? It is an awful thought! Can you instance in a a hundred? In fifty? In twenty? In ten ?-If not, take heed unto yourself and to your doctrine. It cannot be, that both are right before God. Consider now, (I would not speak; but I dare not refrain,) what have been the consequences of even my preaching the other doctrine? By the fruits shall we know those of whom I speak: even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience the gospel I preach, to be the power of God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard, that was, is now temperate in all things. The whoremonger, now flees fornication. He that stole, steals no more, but works with his hands. He that cursed or swore, perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with reverence. Those formerly enslaved to various habits of sin, are now brought to uniform habits of holiness. These are demonstrable facts. I can name the men, with their several places of abode. One of them was an avowed Atheist for many years; some were Jews; a considerable number Papists: the greatest part of them as much strangers to the form, as to the power of godliness. When you have weighed these things touching the consequences of my preaching, on the one hand, (somewhat different from those set down in your Remarks, and of your preaching on the other, I would earnestly recommend the following words to your deepest consideration: Beware of false prophets; ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree (every true prophet or teacher) bringeth forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire.* III. 1. Having spoken more largely than I designed, on the principle I hold in common with the Moravians, I shall touch very briefly on those errors (so called) which you say, I hold, more than theirs. "You name, as the first, my holding, that a man may have a degree of justifying faith, before he has, in the full, proper sense, a new, a clean heart." I have so often explained this, that I cannot throw away time in adding any more now only this, That the moment a sinner is jus tified, his heart is cleansed in a low degree. But yet he has not a clean heart, in the full, proper sense, till he is made perfect in love. 2. Another error you mention, is this *" doctrine of perfection." To save you from a continued ignoratio elenchi, I waive disputing on this point also, till you are better acquainted with my real sentiments. I have declared them on that head again and again; particularly in the Sermon on Christian Perfection. 3. Into this fallacy you plunge from the beginning to the end of what you speak on my third error, (so you term it,) relating to the Lord's Supper; confuting, as mine, fnotions which I know not. I cannot think any farther answer is needful here, than the bare recital of my own words. Frid. June 27. I preached on, Do this in remembrance of me. 'It has been diligently taught among us, that none but those who are converted, who have received the Holy Ghost, who are believers in the full sense, ought to communicate. But experience shows the gross falsehood of that assertion, that the Lord's Supper is not a converting ordinance. Ye are witnesses. For many now present know, the very beginning of your conversion to God, (perhaps, in some the first deep conviction,) was brought at the Lord's Supper. Now one single instance of this kind, overthrows that whole assertion. The falsehood of the other assertion appears both from Scripture precept, and example. Our Lord commanded those very men who were then unconverted, who had not yet received the Holy Ghost, who (in the full sense of the word) were not believers, to do this in remembrance of him. Here the precept is clear. And to these he delivered the elements with his own hands. Here is example equally indisputable. Sat. 28. I showed at large, 1. That the Lord's Supper was ordained by God, to be a means of conveying to men, either preventing, or justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities. 2. That the persons for whom it was ordained, are all those who know and feel that they want the grace of God, either to restrain them from sin, or to show their sins forgiven, or to renew their souls in the image of God. 3. That inasmuch as we come to his table, not to give him any thing, but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us, there is no previous preparation necessary; but a desire to receive whatsoever he pleases to give. And, 4. That no fitness is required at the time of communicating, but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness; every one who knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this as well as all other ways of his appointment.' 4. "A stoical insensibility," you add, "is the next error I have to charge you with. You say, The servants of God suffer nothing,' and suppose, that we ought to be here so free, as in the strongest pain, not once to desire to have a moment's ease. * Remarks, p. 60. ↑ p. 56, 57. ↑ Journal, Vol. I. p. 323. § Remarks, p. 58. "At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion to the very height of extravagance and presumption. You say, 'Doom, if thou canst, to endless pains, And drive me from thy face.' "A stoical insensibility is the next error I have to charge you with." And how do you support the charge? Why thus: "You say, 'The servants of God suffer nothing.' And can you possibly misunderstand these words, if you read those that immediately follow? His body was well nigh torn asunder with pain. But God made all his bed in his sickness. So that he was continually giving thanks to God, and making his boast of his praise.' "You suppose, we ought to be so free, as in the strongest pain, not once to desire to have a moment's ease." O Sir, with what eyes did you read those words? "I dined with one who told me in all simplicity, Sir, I thought last week, there could be no such rest as you describe; none in this world, wherein we should be so free, as not to desire ease in pain. But God has taught me better: for on Friday and Saturday, when I was in the strongest pain, I never once had one moment's desire of ease, but only that the will of God might be done.' Do I say here, that "we ought not, in the strongest pain, once to desire to have a moment's ease?" What a frightful distortion of my words is this? What I say is, 'A serious person affirmed to me, that God kept her for two days in such a state.' And why not? Where is the absurdity?, "At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion, to the very height of extravagancy and presumption. You say, 'Doom, if thou canst, to endless pains, "If thou canst"-i. e. If thou canst deny thyself, if thou canst forget to be gracious, if thou canst cease to be truth and love. So the lines, both preceding and following, fix the sense. I see nothing of "stoical insensibility," neither of "extravagancy or presumption" in this. 5. Your last charge is, that I am "guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree. * Enthusiasm (you say) is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance. An enthusiast is then sincere, but mistaken. His intentions are goodbut his actions most abominable. Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only that secret impulse, which is owing to a warm imagination. Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies, &c. He is very liable to err, as not considering things coolly and carefully. He is very difficult to be convinced, by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the directions of God's Spirit. Whoever opposes him is charged * Remarks, p. 60, 61, with rejecting the Spirit. His own dreams must be regarded as oracles. Whatever he does, is to be accounted the work of God. Hence he talks in the style of inspired persons: and applies Scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference of times and circumstances." You have drawn, Sir, (in the main,) a true picture of an enthusiast. But it is no more like me, than I am like a centaur. Yet you say, "they are these very things which have been charged upon you, and which you could never yet disprove:" I will try for once; and to that end, will go over these articles, one by one. "Enthusiasm is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance." Before this touches me, you are to prove, (which I conceive you have not done yet) that my conduct is such, as is only to be justified by the supposition of an extraordinary divine assistance. "An enthusiast is then sincere, but mistaken," that I am "mistaken" remains also to be proved. "His intentions are good; but his actions most abominable." Sometimes they are; yet not always. For there may be innocent madmen. But what actions of mine are "most abominable?" I wait to learn. "Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only his secret impulse." In the whole compass of language, there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this. I have declared again and again, that I make the Word of God the rule of all my actions: and that I no more follow any "secret impulse" instead thereof, than I follow Mahomet or Confucius. "Not even a word or look Do I approve or own, "Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies." Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. Nor did I ever experience any. I do judge of my spiritual estate by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my life conjointly. "He is very liable to err." So indeed I am. I find it every day more and more. But I do not yet find, that this is owing to my want of "considering things coolly and carefully." Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take. Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. My God, supply this and all my wants!" He is very difficult to be convinced, by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the direction of God's Spirit." I am very difficult to be convinced, by dry blows or hard names; (both of which I have not wanted :) but not, by reason and argument. At least that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention. For I claim no other direction of God's Spirit, than is common to all believers. "Whoever opposes him is charged with rejecting the Spirit." What! whoever opposes me, John Wesley? Do I charge every such person with rejecting the Spirit? No more than I charge him with robbing on the highway. I cite you yourself, to confute your own words. For do I charge you with rejecting the Spirit? "His own dreams must be regarded as oracles!" Whose? I desire neither my dreams nor my waking thoughts, may be regarded at all, unless just so far as they agree with the oracles of God. "Whatever he does is to be accounted the work of God." You strike quite wide of me still. I never said so of what I do. I never thought so. Yet I trust what I do is pleasing to God. "Hence he talks in the style of inspired persons." No otherwise inspired, than you are, if you love God. "And applies Scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference of times and circumstances." I am not conscious of any thing like this. I apply no Scripture phrase either to myself or any other, without carefully considering both its original meaning, and the secondary sense, wherein (allowing for different times and circumstances) it may be applied to ordinary Christians. 6. So much for the bulk of your charge. But it concerns me likewise, to gather up the fragments of it. You say, “ * We desire no more, than to try your sentiments and proceedings, by the written word." Agreed. Begin when and where you please. find there good works as strongly insisted on as faith." I do as strongly insist on them as on faith. But each in its own order. "We find all railing, &c. condemned therein." True; and so you may in all I write or preach. "We are assured, that the doing what God commands, is the sure way of knowing, that we have received his Spirit." We have doubtless received it, if we love God (as he commands) with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength: "And not by any sensible impulses or feelings whatsoever."-" Any sensible impulses whatsoever?" Do you then exclude all sensible impulses? Do you reject inward feelings toto genere? Then you reject both the love of God and of our neighbour. For if these cannot be inwardly felt, nothing can. You reject all joy in the Holy Ghost. For if we cannot be sensible of this, it is no joy at all You reject the peace of God, which if it be not felt in the inmost soul, is a dream, a notion, an empty name. You, therefore reject the whole inward kingdom of God, that is, in effect, the whole gospel of Jesus Christ. You have, therefore, yourself abundantly shown (what I do not insinuate, but proclaim on the house-top) that I am charged with enthusiasm, for asserting the power (as well as the form) of godliness. 7. You go on "The character of the Enthusiast above drawn, will fit, I believe, all such of the Methodists as can be thought sincere." I believe not. I have tried it on one, and it fitted him, just as Saul's armour did David. However, a few instances of enthusiasm you undertake to show in this very journal. And first, "You give us one" (these are your words) "of a priwate revelation, which you seem to pay great credit to." You partly * Remarks, p. 63. ↑ Ibid. |