Where are you now?- full of faith? looking into the holiest, and seeing Him that is invisible? Does your heart now glow with love to him, who is daily pouring his benefits upon you? Do you now even desire it? Do you now say, (as you did almost twenty years ago,)— "Keep me dead to all below, Only Christ resolved to know; Is your taste now for heavenly things? Are not you a lover of pleasure, more than a lover of God? And Ō what pleasure! What is the pleasure of visiting? Of modern conversation? Is there any more reason than religion in it? I wonder, what rational appetite does it gratify? Setting religion quite out of the question, I cannot conceive how a woman of sense can-relish, should I say? no, but suffer, so insipid an entertainment. O that the time past may suffice! Is it not now high time that you should awake out of sleep? Now God calls aloud! My dear Lady, now hear the voice of the Son of God, and live! The trouble in which your tender parent is now involved may restore all that reverence for her which could not but be a little impaired while you supposed she was "righteous overmuch." O how admirably does God lay hold of and strengthen the things that remain" in you! your gratitude, your humane temper, your generosity, your filial tenderness! And why is this, but to improve every right temper; to free you from all that is irrational or unholy; to make you all that you were, yea, all that you should be; to restore you to the whole image of God? I am, my Lady, Yours, &c. 66 CLXXXVIII.--To Mr. Hosmer. NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 7, 1761. MY DEAR BROTHER,-I apprehend, if you will give another careful reading to those four pages, 244-247, you will find all your objections anticipated or answered. However, I do not think much of answering them over again. Your words are, "You say, 'A mistake is not a sin, if love is the sole principle of action; yet it is a transgression of the perfect law: therefore, perfect love is not the perfect law!" Most sure: for by the perfect law, I mean that given to Adam at his creation. But the loving God with all his heart was not the whole of that law it implied abundantly more; even thinking, speaking, and acting right in every instance, which he was then able, and therefore obliged, to do. But none of his descendants are able to do this; therefore love is the fulfilling of their law. Perhaps you had not adverted to this. The law of love, which is the whole law given to us, is only one branch of that perfect law which was given to Adam in the beginning. His law was far wider than ours, as his faculties were more extensive. Consequently, many things might be transgressions of the latter, which were not of the former. "But if ignorance be a transgression of the perfect iaw"-Whoever said or thought so? Ignorance is not; but mistake is. And this Adam was able to avoid; that kind of ignorance which was in him not constraining him to mistake, as ours frequently does. "But is a voluntary transgression of a known law' a proper defini tion of sin?" I think it is of all such sin as is imputed to our condemnation. And it is a definition which has passed uncensured in the Church for at least fifteen hundred years. To propose any objections that naturally arise, is right; but beware you do not seek objections. If you once begin this, you will never have done. Indeed, this whole affair is a strife of words. The thing is plain. All in the body are liable to mistakes, practical as well as speculative. Shall we call them sins or no? I answer again and again, Call them just what you please. CLXXXIX.-To Mr. Alexander Coates. OTLEY, July 7, 1761. MY DEAR BROTHER,-The perfection I teach is perfect love; loving God with all the heart; receiving Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, to reign alone over all our thoughts, words, and actions. The Papists neither teach nor believe this: give even the devil his due. They teach, there is no perfection here which is not consistent with venial sins; and among venial sins they commonly reckon simple fornication. Now, I think this is so far from the perfection I teach, that it does not come up to any but Mr. Relly's perfection. To say, Christ will not reign alone in our hearts in this life; will not enable us to give him all our hearts; this, in my judgment, is making him a half Saviour: he can be no more, if he does not quite save us from our sins. I pray, then, be not quite so peremptory. Who exalts Christ most? those who call on him to be the sole monarch of the heart; or those who allow him only to share the power, and to govern most of the thoughts and tempers? Who honour him most? those who believe he heals all our sickness, takes away all our ungodliness; or those who say, He heals only the greater part of it, till death does what he cannot do? I know no creature (of us) who says, "Part of our salvation belongs to Christ, and part to us.” No; we all say, Christ alone saves us from all sin; and your question is not about the Author, but the measure of salvation. Both agree, it is all Christ; but is it all salvation, or only half salvation, he will give? Who was Pelagius? By all I can pick up from ancient authors, I guess he was both a wise and a holy man. But we know nothing but his name; for his writings are all destroyed; not one line of them left. But, brother Coates, this way of talking is highly offensive. I advise you, 1. If you are willing to labour with us, preach no doctrine contrary to, ours. I have preached twenty years in some of Mr. Whitefield's societies; yet, to this day, I never contradicted him among his own people. I did not think it honest, neither necessary at all. I could preach salvation by faith, and leave all controversy untouched. I advise you, 2. Avoid all those strong rhetorical exclamations, "O horrid! O dreadful!" and the like; unless when you are strongly exhorting sinners to renounce the devil and all his works. 3. Acquaint yourself better with the doctrine we preach, and you will find it not dreadful, but altogether lovely. 4. Observe, that if forty persons think and speak wrong, either about justification or sanctification, (and perhaps fancy they have attained both,) this is no objection is the doctrines themselves. They must bear their own burden. But this does not at all affect the point in question. 5. Remember, as sure as you are, that "believers cannot fall from grace," others (wise and holy men too) are equally sure they can; and you are as much obliged to bear with them as they are to bear with you. 6. Abstain from all controversy in public. Indeed, you have not a talent for it. You have an honest heart, but not a clear head. Practical religion is your point; therefore, 7. Keep to this: Repentance toward God, faith in Christ, holiness of heart and life, a growing in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, the continual need of bis atoning blood, a constant confidence in him, and all these every moment to our life's end. In none of these will any of our preachers contradict you, or you them. When you leave this plain path, and get into controversy, then they think you "invade the glories of our adorable King, and the unspeakable rights, and privileges, and comforts of his children;" and can they then "tamely hold their peace?" O Sander, know the value of peace and love! I am Your affectionate brother CXC.-To Mr. S. F. BRISTOL, October 13, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,-In general, when I apprehend, "Certainly this is a contradiction;" if I find other persons of equal sagacity with myself, of equal natural and acquired abilities, apprehend it is not; I immediately suspect my own judgment; and the more so, because I remember I have been many times full as sure as I am now; and yet afterward I found myself mistaken. As to this particular question, I believe I am able to answer every objection which can be made. But I am not able to do it without expending much time, which may be better employed. For this reason I am persuaded, it is so far from being my duty to enter into a formal controversy about it, that it would be a wilful sin; it would be employing my short residue of life in a less profitable way than it may be employed. The proposition which I will hold is this: "A person may be cleansed from all sinful tempers, and yet need the atoning blood." For what? For "negligences and ignorances;" for both words and actions, (as well as omissions,) which are, in a sense, transgressions of the perfect law. And I believe no one is clear of these till he lays down this cor ruptible body. Now, Sammy, dropping the point of contradiction, tell me simply what you would have more. Do you believe evil tempers remain till death? all or some? if some only, which? I love truth wherever I find it; so, if you can help me to a little more of it, you will oblige, dear Sammy, Yours, &c. CXCI.-To Lord JULY 26, 1764. MY LORD,-Upon an attentive consideration, it will appear to every impartial person, that the uniting of the serious clergy in the manner I proposed in a former letter is not a matter of indifferency; but what none can reject, unless at the peril of his own soul. For every article therein mentioned is undeniably contained in the royal law, the law of love; and, consequently, the observance thereof is bound upon every man, as indispensably necessary to salvation. It will appear farther, that every single person may observe it, whether the other will or no. For many years, I, for instance, have observed this rule in every article. I labour to do so now, and will, by God's help, whatever others do, observe it to the end. I rejoice that your lordship so heartily concurs in doing what is in your power to promote a general observance of it. Certainly this is not possible to be effected by merely human means; but, it seems, your lordship has taken one good step toward it, by communicating it to several. I am persuaded, at the same time, your lordship's wish is, that it might take place every where. The same step I purpose to take, by sending to each of those gentlemen the substance of what I wrote to your lordship, and desiring them to tell me freely whatever objections they have against such a union. As many of those as are grounded on reason, I doubt not, will be easily answered. Those only which spring from some wrong temper must remain till that temper is subdued. For instance: First, "We cannot unite," says one, “because we cannot trust one another." I answer to your reason or understanding, No matter whether we can or no. Thus far we must unite, trust or not; otherwise we sin against God. Secondly, I can trust you; why cannot you trust me? I can have no private end herein. I have neither personal hopes nor fears from you. I want nothing which you can give me; and I am not afraid of your doing me any hurt; though you may hurt yourself and the cause of God. But I cannot answer your envy, jealousy, pride, or credulity. As long as those remain, objections, however cut off, will spring up again like Hydra's heads. If your lordship has heard any objections, I should be glad to know them. May I be permitted to ask, Have not the objections you have heard made some impression upon your lordship? Have they not occasioned (if I may speak freely) your lordship's standing aloof from me? Have they not set your lordship farther and farther off, ever since I waited upon you at —— -? Why do I ask? Indeed, not upon my own account. Quid mea? Ego in portu navigo. [What is it to me? I am safe.] I can truly say, I neither fear nor desire any thing from your lordship; to speak a rough truth, I do not desire any intercourse with any persons of quality in England. I mean, for my own sake. They do me no good, and I fear I can do none to them. If it be desired, I will readily leave all those to the care of my fellow labourers. I will article with them so to do, rather than this shall be any bone of contention. Were I not afraid of giving your lordship pain, I would speak yet still farther. Methinks you desire I should; that is, to tell you, once for all, every thought that rises in my heart. I will then : At present, I do not want you; but I really think you want me. For, have you a person in all England who speaks to your lordship so plain and downright as I do? who considers not the peer, but the man? not the earl, but the immortal spirit? who rarely commends, but often blames, and perhaps would do it oftener if you desired it? who is jealous over you with a godly jealousy, lest you should be less a Christian by being a nobleman? lest, after having made a fair advance toward heaven, you should Measure back your steps to earth again? O my lord, is not such a person as this needful for you in the highest degree? If you have any such, I have no more to say, but that I pray God to bless him to your soul. If you have not, despise not even the assistance which it may please God to give you by, my lord, Your lordship's ready servant. CXCII. To the Reverend Mr. H. MARCH 27, 1764. DEAR SIR,-Your book on the Millennium and the Mystic Writers was lately put into my hands. I cannot but thank you for your strong and seasonable confirmation of that comfortable doctrine; of which I cannot entertain the least doubt as long as I believe the Bible. I thank you, likewise, for your remarks on that bad performance of the bishop of G-, which undoubtedly tears up by the roots all real, internal religion. Yet, at the same time, I cannot but bewail your vehement attachment to the Mystic writers; with whom I conversed much for several years, and whom I then admired perhaps more than you do now. But I found, at length, an absolute necessity of giving up either them or the Bible. So, after some time, I fixed my choice, to which I hope to adhere to my life's end. It is only the extreme attachment to these which can account for the following words: "Mr. W. does, in several parts of his Journals, lay down some marks of the new birth, not only doubtful, but exceptionable; as, particularly, where persons appeared agitated or convulsed under the ministry; which might be owing to other causes, rather than any regenerating work of God's Spirit." (page 385.) Is this true? In what one part of my Journals do I lay down any doubtful, much less exceptionable, marks of the new birth? In no part do I lay down those agitations or convulsions as any marks of it at all. Nay, I expressly declare the contrary in those very words which the bishop himself cites from my Journal. I declare, "These are of a disputable nature: they may be from God; they may be from nature; they may be from the devil." How is it, then, that you tell all the world, Mr. W. lays them down in his Journals as marks of the new birth? Is it kind? Would it not have been far more kind, suppose I had spoken wrong, to tell me of it in a private manner? How much more unkind was it to accuse me to all the world of a fault which I never committed! Is it wise thus to put a sword in the hands of our common enemy? Are we not both fighting the battle of our Lord, against the world, as well as the flesh and the devil? And shall I furnish them with weapons against you, or you against me? Fine diversion for the children of the devil! And how much more would they be diverted, if I would furnish |