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 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!

“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.”

♦ “it” replaced with “is”

This is very pretty, and very lively. But it is nothing to the purpose. For we are not now speaking of justification: neither have I said one word of “the condition of justification” in the whole tract to which you here refer.

“In the next place (say you) if we are saved (finally you mean) only by a confidence in the love of God.”――Here I must stop you again; you are now running beside the question, on the other hand. The sole position which I here advance is this: true believers are saved from inward and outward sin by faith. By faith alone the love of God and all mankind is shed abroad in their hearts, bringing with it the mind that was 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?”

♦ “οῦ ἓμελλόν λαμβὰνειν ὁι πιστεὺοντες ἐις ἀυτὸν” replaced with “οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν”

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.

♦ “extraordinory” replaced with “extraordinary”

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.”

♦ “you” replaced with “your”

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_?

♦ “will” replaced with “well”

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_.

♦ “poof” replaced with “proof”

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.

9. I conceive, not only that your Lordship has _proved_ nothing hitherto, not one point that has any relation to the question: but that, strictly speaking, you have not _attempted to prove_ any thing, having _taken for granted_ whatever came in your way. In the same manner you proceed, “The apostle goes on, _The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God_. This passage, as it is connected with the preceding one, relates to the general adoption of Christians, or their becoming the sons of God instead of the _Jews_.”――“This passage relates”――How is that proved? By its connexion with the preceding? In no wise, unless it be good arguing to prove _Ignotum per ignotius_. It has not yet been proved, that the preceeding passage itself has any relation to this matter.

Your Lordship adds, “But what was the ground of this preference that was given to Christians? It was plainly the (miraculous) _gifts of the Spirit_, which they had, and which the _Jews_ had not.” _This preference given to Christians_, was just before exprest by their _becoming the sons of |God| instead of the |Jews|_. Were the gifts of the Spirit then _the ground of this preference_? The ground of their becoming the sons of God? What an assertion is this! And how little is it mended, though I allow, that “these miraculous gifts of the Spirit, were a testimony that God acknowledged the _Christians_ to be his people and not the _Jews_: (since the _Christians_ who worked miracles, did it not _by the works of the law_, but by _the hearing of faith_?”)

Your Lordship concludes, “From these passages of St. _Paul_, compared together, it clearly follows, that the fore-mentioned _testimony of the Spirit_, was the _public testimony_ of miraculous gifts――and, consequently, _the witness of the Spirit that we are the children of |God|_, cannot possibly be applied, to the _private testimony_ of the Spirit given to our own consciences, as is pretended by modern _enthusiasts_.” Page 20.

If your conclusion, my Lord, will stand without the premisses it may: but that it has no manner of connection with them, I trust does partly, and will more fully appear, when we view the whole passage to which you refer. And I believe that passage, with very little comment, will prove, in direct opposition to that conclusion, that the testimony of the Spirit there mentioned, is not the _public testimony_ of miraculous gifts, but must be applied to the _private testimony_ of the Spirit, given to our own consciences.

10. St. _Paul_ begins the 8th chapter of his Epistle to the _Romans_, with the great privilege of every Christian believer, (whether _Jew_ or _Gentile_ before) _There is now no condemnation for them that are in |Christ Jesus|_, engrafted into him by faith, _who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For_ now every one of them may truly say, _The law_ (or power) _of the Spirit of life in |Christ Jesus|_ (given unto me for his sake) _hath made me free from the law_ (or power) _of sin and death. For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, |God| sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin_, did; when he _condemned_, (crucified, put to death, destroyed) _sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh, mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit._ Verse 1‒5.

Is it not evident, that the apostle is here describing a true Christian, a holy believer? In opposition, not particularly to a _Jew_, much less to the _Jewish law_, but to every unholy man, to all, whether _Jews_ or _Gentiles, who walk after the flesh_? He goes on

_For, to be carnally-minded is death; but to be spiritually-minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against |God|: for it is not subject to the law of |God|; neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh, cannot please |God|._ Verses 6, 7, 8.

The opposition between a holy and unholy man, is still glaring and undeniable. But can any man discern, the least glimmering of opposition, between the _Christian_ and the _Jewish_ LAW.

The apostle goes on, _But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of |God| dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of |Christ|, he is none of his. But if |Christ| be in you, the body is dead, because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up |Jesus| from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up |Christ| from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit which dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of |God|, they are the sons of |God|._ Verse 9‒14.

Is there one word here, is there any the least intimation of _miraculous_ gifts, or of the _Jewish law_?

It follows, _For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again, to fear_ (such as all sinners have, when they at first stirred up to seek God, and begin to serve him from a slavish fear of punishment) _But ye have received the spirit of adoption_ (of free love) _whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself_ (which God _hath sent forth into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father,) beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of |God|._ Verse 15, 16.

I am now willing to leave it, without farther comment, to the judgment of every impartial reader, whether it does not appear from the whole scope and tenor of the text and context taken together, that this passage does not refer to the _Jewish law_, nor to the _public testimony of miracles_: neither of which can be dragged in, without putting the utmost force on the natural meaning of the words. And if so, it will follow, that this _witness of the Spirit_ is _the private testimony given to our own consciences_: which, consequently, all sober Christians may claim, without any danger of _enthusiasm_.

11. “But I go on (says your Lordship, page 21.) to the consideration of the other passages in the same chapter, relating to our _praying by the Spirit_, namely at verse 26 and 27, which runs thus, _Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of |God|._”

Here is a circumstance highly needful to be observed, before we enter upon this question. Your Lordship undertakes to fix the meaning of an expression used by St. _Paul_, in the 14th chapter of his first epistle to the _Corinthians_. And in order thereto, you laboriously explain part of the 8th chapter of the _Romans_. My Lord, how is this? Will it be said, Why _this_ is often alledged to prove the wrong sense of _that_ scripture? I conceive, this will not salve the matter at all. Your Lordship had before laid down a particular method, as the only sure one whereby to distinguish what scriptures belong to all Christians, and what do not. This method is, the considering the occasion and scope of those passages, by comparing the text and context together. You then propose, by the use of this method, to shew, that several texts have been misapplied by _Enthusiasts_. One of these is the 15th verse of the 14th chapter of the first epistle to the _Corinthians_. And to shew, that _Enthusiasts_ have misapplied this, you comment on the 8th chapter to the _Romans_!

However, let us weigh the comment itself. The material part of it begins thus: (page 22.) “Now he adds another proof of the truth of Christianity: _Likewise the Spirit helpeth our infirmities_ (or our _distresses_, for ♦ἀσθενείαις signifies both.” I doubt that: I require authority for it.) “And then he mentions, in what instances he does so, viz. In _prayers_ to God about afflictions”――(In nothing else, my Lord? Did he _help their infirmities_, in no other instance than this?) “_We know not_, says he, _what we should pray for as we ought_. That is, whether it be best for us to bear afflictions, or to be delivered from them. But _the Spirit_, OR the gift of the Spirit, instructs us how to _pray_ in a manner agreeable to the will of God.” _The Spirit_, OR the _gift_ of the Spirit! What marvellous reasoning is this? If these “are often put for each other,” what then? How is that evinced to be the case here?

♦ “ἀθενείαις” replaced with “ἀσθενείαις”

12. “The apostle goes on, _The Spirit itself_ (page 23) _maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered_: That is, the _spiritual_ or _inspired person_ prayed in that capacity for the whole assembly.” “That is!” Nay, that is again the very point to be proved, else we get not one step farther.

“The apostle goes on thus, verse 27. _And he that_ (page 24) _searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit_, (that is, of the _spiritual_ or _inspired_ person) _because_ he _maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of |God|_. That is, God knows the intention of the _spiritual_ person, who has the _gift_ of _prayer_, which he uses for the benefit of the whole assembly; he, I say, leaves it entirely to God, whether it be best that they should suffer afflictions, or be delivered from them.” Page 25.

My Lord, this is more astonishing than all the rest! I was expecting all along in reading the preceding pages (and so I suppose, was every thinking reader) when your Lordship would mention, that the person _miraculously inspired_ for that intent, and praying κατὰ Θεὸν either for the support or deliverance of the people, should _have the very petition which he asked of him_. Whereas you intended no such thing! But shut up the whole with that lame and impotent conclusion, “He leaves it to God, whether it be best they should suffer afflictions, or be delivered from them.”

Had he then that _miraculous_ gift of God, that he might do what any common Christian might have done without it? Why, any person in the congregation might have prayed thus: nay, could not pray otherwise, if he had the _ordinary_ grace of God: “Leaving it to God, whether he should suffer afflictions still, or be delivered from them.” Was it _only_ in the apostolical age, that “the Spirit instructed Christians _thus_ to pray?” Cannot a man pray _thus_, either for himself or others, unless he has the _miraculous_ gift of prayer!――So, according to your Lordship’s judgment, “To pray in such a manner, as in the event to leave the continuance of our sufferings, or our deliverance from them, with a due submission, to the good pleasure of God,” is one of those “_extraordinary_ operations of the Spirit,” which none now pretend to but “modern _enthusiasts_!”

I beseech your Lordship to consider. Can you cooly maintain, that “the praying with a due submission to the will of God,” even in heavy affliction, is a _miraculous gift_? An _extraordinary operation_ of the Holy Ghost? Is _this_ peculiar to the primitive times? Is it what _none_ but _enthusiasts_ now pretend to? If not, then your Lordship’s own account of _praying by the Spirit_ indisputably proves, that this is one of the _ordinary_ privileges of all Christians, to the end of the world.

13. “I go on (your Lordship adds) to another passage of scripture, that has been entirely (page 27.) misapplied by modern _enthusiasts_. 1 Corinthians ii. 4, 5. _And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in the demonstration of the spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of |God|._” Page 29.

“It is only necessary to evince, that by _the demonstration of the spirit and power_ is meant the demonstration of the truth of Christianity, that arises from the prophesies of the _Old Testament_, and the _miracles_ of _Christ_ and his _apostles_.” Yes, it is necessary farther to evince, that these words have _no other_ meaning. But first, How will you evince, that they bear this? In order thereto, your Lordship argues thus:

“The former _seems to be_ the demonstration of the Spirit, with regard to the prophetical testimonies of him.――And _the demonstration of power, must signify_ the power of God, exerted in miracles.” (page 30.) “Must;” Why so? That δύναμις often signifies _miraculous power_, is allowed――But what follows? That it _must mean_ so in this place? That still remains to be proved.

Indeed your Lordship says, this “appears from the following verse, in which is assigned the reason for using this method of proving Christianity to be true, viz. _That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of |God|_. By the power of God therefore must necessarily be understood, the miracles performed by Christ and his apostles.” By the illative particle, _therefore_, this proposition should be an inference from some other: but what other I cannot yet discern. So that, for the present, I can only look upon it, as a fresh instance of begging the question.

“He goes on in the 7th, 10th and following verses, to explain this _demonstration of the spirit and of power_.” But he does not say one syllable therein, either of the _ancient prophecies_, or of _miracles_. Nor will it be easily proved, that he speaks either of one or the other, from the beginning of the chapter to the end.

After transcribing the 13th verse, _which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual_, your Lordship adds, “From which last passage it appears, that the words which the Holy Ghost is said _to teach, must be_ the prophetical revelations of the _Old Testament_, which were discovered to the apostles by the same Spirit.” I cannot apprehend, how this appears. I cannot as yet see any connection at all between the premisses and the conclusion.

Upon the whole, I desire any calm and serious man, to read over this whole chapter; and then he will easily judge, what is the natural meaning of the words in question: and whether (although it be allowed, that they were _peculiarly_ fulfilled in the apostles, yet) they do not manifestly belong, _in a lower sense_, to every true minister of Christ? For what can be more undeniable than this, that _our_ preaching also is vain, unless it be attended with _the power_ of that Spirit, who alone pierceth the heart? And that your hearing is vain, unless the same _power be present to heal_ your soul, and to give you a faith which _standeth not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of |God|_?

14. “Another passage that (your Lordship thinks) has been misapplied by _enthusiasts_, but was really peculiar to the times of the apostles, is 1 John ii. 20. and 27. (page 35.) _Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.――――But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you: And ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him._” “Here the apostle arms the true Christians ♦against seducers, by an argument drawn from _the unction from the Holy One_, that was _in_ or rather _among_ them: that is, from the _immediate inspiration_ of some of their teachers.” page 37.

♦ “again” replaced with “against”

Here it rests upon your lordship, to prove (as well as affirm) 1. That ἐν should be translated _among_: 2. That this _unction from the Holy One_ means, “The inspiration of some of their teachers.”

The latter your lordship attempts to prove thus: “The inspired teachers of old were set apart for that office, by an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost: Therefore page 38. ♦_The unction from the Holy One_ here, means such an effusion.” I deny the consequence; so the question is still to be proved.

♦ Printer incorrectly started a new paragraph here.

Your lordship’s second argument is drawn from the 26th verse of the 14th chapter of St. _John_’s gospel,

Proposed in form, it will stand thus:

“If those words, _He shall teach you all things_, relate only to a _miraculous_ gift of the Holy Ghost, then these words, _The same anointing teacheth you of all things_, relate to the _miraculous_ gift:

“But those words relate only to a _miraculous_ gift:

“Therefore these relate to the same.”

I conceive, it will not be very easy to make good the consequence in the first proposition. But I deny the minor also: the contradictory whereto, I trust, has appeared to be true.

I grant indeed, that these words were more _eminently_ fulfilled, in the age of the apostles. But this is altogether consistent with their belonging _in a lower sense_, to all Christians in all ages: Seeing they have all need of _an unction from the Holy One_, a supernatural assistance from the Holy Ghost, that they may know in the due use of all proper means, _all things_ needful for their souls health. Therefore it is no _enthusiasm_, to teach that _the unction from the Holy One_, belongs to all Christians in all ages.

15. There is one topic of your lordship’s yet untouched; that is authority: One you have very frequently made use of, and wherein, probably, the generality of readers suppose your lordship’s great strength lies. And indeed when your lordship first mentioned, (page 11.) “The general sense of the primitive church,” I presumed you would have produced so numerous authorities, that I should not easily be able to consult them all. But I soon found my mistake; your lordship naming only _Chrysostom_, _Jerome_, _Origen_, and _Athanasius_.

However, though these four can no more be termed the primitive church, than the church universal, yet I consent to abide by their suffrage. Nay, I will go a step farther still. If any two of these affirm, that those seven texts belong _only to the apostolical age_, and _not to the Christians of succeeding times_, I will give up the whole cause.

But let it be observed: If they should affirm, that these _primarily_ belong to the _♦Christians of the apostolical_ age, that does not prove the point, because they may in a secondary sense belong to _others_ notwithstanding: Nor does any of them speak home to the question, unless he maintain in express terms, that these texts refer _only_ to the _miraculous_ gifts of the Spirit, and _not at all_ to the state of _ordinary_ Christians.

♦ “Christans” replaced with “Christians”

16. Concerning those three texts, _John xiv. verse 16._ and the 26. and _John xvi. verse 13._ “I could easily add (says your lordship,¹) the authorities of _Chrysostom_ and the other antient commentators.” St. _Chrysostom_’s authority I will consider now, and that of the others, when they are produced.

¹ Page 15.

It is granted, that he interprets not only _John xvi. 13._ but also both the passages in the 14th chapter, as primarily belonging to the apostles. Yet part of his comment on the 26th verse, is as follows.

“Such is that grace (of _the Comforter_) that if it finds sadness it takes it away; if evil desire, it consumes it. It casts out fear, and suffers him that receives it to be a man no longer, but translates him, as it were, into heaven. Hence _none of them counted any thing his own_, but _continued in prayer, with gladness and singleness of heart_. For this _chiefly_ is there need of the Holy Ghost. For the fruit of the Spirit is joy, peace, faith, meekness. Indeed spiritual men often grieve; but that grief is sweeter than joy. For whatever is of the Spirit, is the greatest gain, as whatever is of the world, is the greatest loss. Let us therefore in keeping the commandments” (according to our Lord’s exhortation, verse 15.) “secure the unconquerable assistance of the Spirit, and we shall be nothing inferior to angels.”

St. _Chrysostom_ here, after he had shewn, that the promise of the Comforter primarily belonged to the apostles: And who ever questioned it? undeniably teaches, That in a secondary sense, it belongs to all Christians: To all _spiritual men_, all who _keep the commandments_. I appeal therefore to all mankind, whether his authority, touching the promise of our Lord in those texts, does not overthrow the proposition it was cited to prove?

Although your lordship names no other author here, yet page 42. you say, “The assigned sense of these passages was confirmed by the authority of _Origen_.” It is needful therefore to add, what occurs in his works, with regard to the present question.

He occasionally mentions this promise of our Lord, in four several places. But it is in one only that he speaks pertinently to the point in hand, (Volume II. page 403. Edition Benedictine.) where his words are these:

_When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, and he will teach you all things._ “The sum of all good things consists in this, that a man be found worthy to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, nothing will be accounted perfect in him, who hath not the Holy Spirit.”

Do these words confirm that “sense of those passages that your lordship had assigned?” Rather do they not utterly overturn it? And prove, (as above) that although this promise of our Lord, _primarily_ belongs to the apostles, yet in the _secondary_ sense, it belongs (according to _Origen_’s judgment) to all Christians in all ages?

17. The fourth text mentioned as belonging to the first Christians only, is _Romans viii. 15, 16:_ and page 26. it is said, “This interpretation is confirmed by the authority of the most eminent fathers.” The reader is particularly referred to _Origen_ and _Jerom in locum_. But here seems to be a mistake of the name. _Jerom in locum_ should mean, _Jerom_ upon the place, upon _Romans viii. 15, 16._ But I cannot perceive that there is one word upon that place, in all St. _Jerom_’s works.

Nor indeed has _Origen_ commented upon it any more than _Jerom_. But he occasionally mentions it in these words:

“He is a babe who is fed with milk――but if he seeks the things that are above――without doubt he will be of the number of those, who _receive not the Spirit of bondage again unto fear, but the spirit of adoption_, through whom they _cry, Abba Father_.” Volume I. page 79.

Again, “The fulness of time is come――when they who are willing, receive the adoption, as _Paul_ teaches in these words, _Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!_ And it is written in the gospel according to St. _John_, _To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of |God|, even to them that believe in his name._” Volume I. page 231, 232.

Yet again, “Every one that is born of God, and doth not commit sin, by his very actions saith, Our Father which art in heaven, _the Spirit itself bearing witness with their spirit, that they are the children of |God|._” ibid.

According to _Origen_ therefore, this _testimony of the Spirit_, is not any _publick_ testimony by _miracles_, peculiar to the first times, but an _inward_ testimony, belonging in common to all that are _born of_ God. And consequently the authority of _Origen_ does not “confirm that interpretation” neither; but absolutely destroys it.

18. The last authority your Lordship appeals to on this text is, “that of the great _John Chrysostom_, who reckons the _testimony of the spirit_ of adoption by which we cry Abba, Father! among the _miraculous_ gifts of the Spirit.” “I rather chuse (your Lordship adds, page 26.) to refer you to the words of St. _Chrysostom_, than to transcribe them here, as having almost translated them in the present account of the _testimony of the Spirit_.”

However, I believe it will not be labour lost to transcribe a few of those words.

It is his comment on the 14th verse, that he first mentions, St. _Paul_’s comparison between a _Jew_ and a _Christian_. How fairly your Lordship has represented this, let every reader judge.

_As many as are led by the Spirit of |God|, they are the sons of |God|._――“Whereas the same title had been given of old to the _Jews_ also,――he shews in the sequel, how great a difference there is, between that honour and this. For though, says he, the titles are the same, yet the things are not. And he plainly proves it, by comparing both what they had received, and what they looked for. And first he shews what they had received, viz. _A Spirit of bondage_. Therefore he adds, _Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again unto fear: but ye have received the Spirit of adoption_. What means _the spirit of fear_?――*Observe their whole life, and you will know clearly. For punishments were at their heels, and much fear was on every side, and before their face.――But with us it is not so. For our mind and conscience are cleansed, so that we do all things well, not for fear of present punishment, but through our love of God, and an habit of virtue. They therefore, though they were called sons, yet were as slaves; but we, being made free, have received the adoption, and look not for a land of milk and honey, but for heaven.”

*“He brings also another proof, that _we have the Spirit of adoption, by which_, says he, _we cry, Abba, Father_.――This is the first word we utter μετὰ τὰς θαυμαστάς ὠδῖνας ἐκείνας, καὶ τὸν ξένον παράδοξον λοχευμάτων νόμον: after those amazing throes (or birth-pangs) and that strange and wonderful manner of bringing forth.”

“He brings yet another proof of the superiority of those who had _this Spirit of adoption. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of |God|._ I prove this, says he, not only from the voice itself, but also from the cause whence that voice proceeds. For the Spirit suggests the words while we thus speak, which he hath elsewhere exprest more plainly, God _hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father_! But what is, _The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit_? He means, the paraclete by the gift given unto us.” (But that this was an _extraordinary_ gift, we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after) *“And when _the Spirit beareth witness_, what doubt is left? If a man or an angel spake, some might doubt. But when the Most High beareth witness to us, who can doubt any longer?”

Now let any reasonable man judge how far your Lordship has “translated the words of St. _Chrysostom_? And whether he reckons the testimony of the Spirit among the _miraculous_ gifts of the Holy Ghost?” Or among those _ordinary_ gifts of the Spirit of Christ, which if a man have not, he is none of his?

19. The fifth text your Lordship quotes, as describing a _miraculous_ gift of the Spirit, is _1 Corinthians xiv. 15._ To prove which, you comment on the 8th chapter to the _Romans_, particularly the 26th verse: and here again it is said, “That the interpretation assigned, is confirmed by several of the most eminent fathers, more especially the great _John Chrysostom_, as well as by _Origen_ and _Jerome upon the place_.”

I cannot find St. _Jerome_ to have writ one line _upon the place_. And it is obvious, that St. _Chrysostom_ supposes, the whole context from the 17th to the 25th verse, to relate to all Christians in all ages. How this can be said to “confirm the interpretation assigned,” I cannot conjecture. Nay, it is remarkable, that he expounds the former part of the 26th verse, as describing the _ordinary_ privilege of all Christians. Thus far, therefore, he does not confirm, but overthrow “the interpretation before assigned.” But in the middle of the verse he breaks off, and expounds the latter part, as describing one of the _miraculous_ gifts.

Yet I must do the justice to this venerable man to observe, he does not suppose that a _miraculous_ gift was given, only that the inspired might do what any _ordinary_ Christian might have done without it. (This interpretation, even of the latter part of the verse, he does in no wise confirm.) But that he might ask in every particular circumstance, the determinate thing which it was the will of God to give.

20. The third father by whom it is said this interpretation is confirmed is _Origen_. The first passage of his, which relates to _Romans viii. 26._ runs thus: (volume I. page 199.)

“_Paul_ perceiving how far he was, after all these things, from knowing to pray for what he ought, as he ought,” says, _We know not what we should pray for as we ought_. But he adds, whence, what is wanting may be had by one who indeed does not know, but labours to be found worthy of having the defect supplied. For he says _Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities._ “_For we know not what we should pray for as we ought. But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the spirit; because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of |God|._ The Spirit which crieth Abba, Father, in the hearts of the saints, knowing well our groanings in this tabernacle, _maketh intercession for us to |God|, with groanings which cannot be uttered_. To the same effect is that scripture, _1 Corinthians xiv. 15._ _I will pray with the Spirit, I will pray with the understanding also._ For our understanding (or mind ♦ὁ νοῦς) cannot pray, if the Spirit do not pray before it, and the understanding, as it were, listen to it.”

♦ “ὀ νοῦς” replaced with “ὁ νοῦς”

*Again (Volume II. page 146.) “I would know, how the saints cry to God without a voice. The apostle shews, God _hath sent forth the Spirit of his son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father_! And he adds, _the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered_. And again, _he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of |God|._ Thus therefore, the Spirit making intercession for us with God, the cry of the saints is heard without a voice.”

Once more in his Homily on _Joshua_, (volume II. page 419.)

“Jesus, our Lord, doth not forsake us; but although when we would pray, _we know not what to pray for as we ought_, yet _the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered_. Now the Lord is that Spirit: The Spirit assists our prayers, and offers them to God with groanings which we cannot express in words.”

I believe all rational men will observe from hence, that _Origen_ is so far from confirming, that he quite overturns your Lordship’s interpretation of the 16th as well as the 26th verse of this chapter: seeing, in his judgment, both _that testimony of the spirit and this prayer_ belong to all Christians in all ages.

21. The sixth scripture which your Lordship has undertaken to shew, “relates only to the apostolical times,” is _1 Corinthians ii. 4, 5._ And “this interpretation also, (it is said) is confirmed by the authority of _Chrysostom_, _Origen_, and other ancient writers.” (page 33) With those other “antient writers” I have no concern yet. St. _Chrysostom_ so far confirms this interpretation, as to explain that whole phrase _the demonstration of the spirit and of power_, of “the power of the Spirit shewn by miracles.” But he says not one word, of any “proof of the Christian religion, arising from the types and prophecies of the old Testament.”

_Origen_ has these words (Volume I. page 321.)

“Our word has a certain peculiar demonstration, more divine than the Grecian, logical demonstration. This the apostle terms, _The demonstration of the Spirit and of power_: of the Spirit because of the prophecies, sufficient to convince any one, especially of the things that relate to Christ; of power, because of the miraculous powers, some footsteps of which still remain.”

Hence we may doubtless infer, ♦that _Origen_ judged this text to relate, in its _primary_ sense to the apostles: but can we thence infer, that he did not judge it to belong, _in a lower sense_, to all true ministers of Christ?

♦ “thas” replaced with “that”

Let us hear him speaking for himself in the same treatise (page 377.)

“_And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of |God|._ *Those who hear the word preached _with power_, are themselves filled _with power_,” (_N. B._ Not the power of working miracles) which they _demonstrate_ both in their disposition, and in their life, and in their striving for the truth unto death. But some although they profess to believe, have not this _power_ of God in them, but are empty thereof.”

(Did _Origen_ then believe, that _the power_ mentioned in this text, belonged _only_ to the apostolical age?)

“See the force of the word, conquering believers by a persuasiveness attended with the power of God! I speak this to shew the meaning of him that said, _And my speech and my preaching were not with the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of |God|._ This divine saying means, that what is spoken is not sufficient of itself (although it be true and most worthy to be believed) to pierce a man’s soul, if there be not also a certain _power from_ God given to the speaker, and grace bloom upon what is spoken, and this grace cannot be but from God.”

After observing, that this is the very passage which your Lordship mentions at the close of the other (but does not cite) I desire every unprejudiced person to judge, whether _Origen_ does not clearly determine, that _the power_, spoken of in this text, is in some measure given to all true ministers in all ages?

22. The last scripture which your Lordship affirms “to be peculiar to the times of the apostles,” is that in the first epistle of St. _John_, concerning _the unction of the Holy One_.

To confirm this interpretation, we are referred to the authority of _Origen_ and _Chrysostom_, on the parallel passages in St. _John_’s gospel,” (page 42.)

But it has appeared, that both these fathers suppose those passages to belong to all Christians. And consequently their authority (if these are parallel passages) stands full against this interpretation.

Your Lordship subjoins, “I shall here only add that of the great _Athanasius_, who (in his epistle to _Serapion_) interprets _The unction from the Holy One_, not _merely_ of divine grace, but of the _extraordinary_ gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

Nay, it is enough, if he interprets it _at all_ of _ordinary grace_, such as is common to all Christians.

And this your Lordship allows he does. But I cannot allow that he interprets it of any thing else. I cannot perceive, that he interprets it _at all_, “of the _extraordinary_ gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

His words are, “The Holy Spirit is called, and is, the unction and the seal. For _John_ writes, _The anointing which ye have received of him, abideth in you; and ye need not that any man should teach you, but as his anointing_, his Spirit, _teacheth you of all things_. Again, it is written in the prophet _Isaiah_, _The Spirit of the |Lord| is upon me, because he hath anointed me_. And _Paul_ writes thus; _In whom also ye were sealed_. And again, _Grieve not the Holy Spirit of |God|, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption_. This anointing is the breath of the Son, so that he who hath the Spirit may say, _We are the sweet-smelling savour of |Christ|_. Because we are partakers of the Holy Spirit, we have the Son: And having the Son, we have _the |Spirit|, crying in our hearts, Abba, Father_.”

And so, in his oration against the _Arians_.

*“_He sendeth the |Spirit| of his |Son| into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father._ His Son in us, invoking the Father, makes him to be called our Father. Certainly God cannot be called their Father, who have not the Son in their hearts.”

Is it not easy to be observed here, 1. That _Athanasius_ makes _that testimony of the_ Spirit common to all the children of God: 2. That he joins _the anointing of the Holy One_, with that seal of the Spirit wherewith all that _persevere_ are _sealed to the day of redemption_: And 3. That he does not, throughout this passage, speak of the _extraordinary gifts_ at all?

Therefore, upon the whole, the sense of the primitive church, so far as it can be gathered from the authors above cited, is, That “although some of the scriptures _primarily_ refer, to those _extraordinary_ gifts of the Spirit, which were given to the apostles, and a few other persons in the apostolical age: yet they refer also, in a _secondary_ sense, to those _ordinary_ operations of the Holy Spirit, which all the children of God do and will experience, even to the end of the world.”

23. What I mean by _The ordinary operations of the Holy Ghost_, I sum up in the words of a modern writer:

“Sanctification being opposed to our corruption, and answering fully to the latitude thereof, whatsoever of holiness and perfection is wanting in our nature, must be supplied by the Spirit of God. Wherefore being by nature we are totally void of all saving truth, and under an impossibility of knowing the will of God; this _Spirit searcheth all things, yea, even the deep things of |God|_, and _revealeth_ them unto the sons of men, so that thereby the darkness of their understanding is expelled, and they are enlightened with the knowledge of God. The same Spirit which _revealeth_ the object of faith generally to the universal church, doth also illuminate the understanding of such as believe, that they may receive the truth. For _faith is the gift of |God|_, not only in the object, but also in the act. And this gift is a gift of the Holy Ghost working within us――And as the increase of perfection, so the original of faith is from the Spirit of God, by an internal illumination of the soul.”

“The second part of the office of the Holy Ghost is, the renewing of man in all the parts and faculties of his soul. For our natural corruption consisting in an aversion of our wills, and a depravation of our affections, and inclination of them to the will of God, is wrought within us by the Spirit of God.”

“The third part of this office is, To lead, direct and govern us in our actions and conversations. _If we live in the Spirit_, quickened by his renovation, we must also _walk in the Spirit_, following his direction, led by his manuduction. We are also animated and acted by the Spirit of God, who giveth _both to will and to do_: And _as many as are_ thus _led by the Spirit of |God|, are the sons of |God|_.¹ Moreover, that this direction may prove more effectual, we are guided in our prayers by the same Spirit: according to the promise, _I will pour upon the house of |David|, and upon the inhabitants of |Jerusalem|, the spirit of grace and supplication_. (Zechariah xii. 10.) Whereas then _this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us_: and whereas _we know not what we should pray for as we ought_, _the |Spirit| itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered_²: And _he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of |God|_.³ From which intercession” (made for all true Christians) “he hath the name of the _Paraclete_ given him by Christ, who said, _I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete_.⁴ For _if any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, |Jesus Christ| the righteous_, saith St. _John_: _Who maketh intercession for us_, saith St. _Paul_, (Romans viii. 34.) And we have _another Paraclete_⁵, saith our Saviour: _Which also maketh intercession for us_⁶, saith St. _Paul_. A _Paraclete_ then, in the notion of the scriptures, is an intercessor.”

¹ Romans viii. 14.

² Verse 26.

³ Verse 26.

⁴ John xiv. 16, 26.

⁵ John xiv. 16.

⁶ Romans viii. 27.

“It is also the office of the Holy Ghost, to _assure us of the adoption of sons_, to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God towards us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inheritance. _The love of |God| shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us_. For _as many as are led by the |Spirit| of |God|, they are the sons of |God|. And because we are sons, |God| hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but we have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father: the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the children of |God|._¹”

¹ Verses 15, 16.

“As therefore we are born again by the Spirit, and receive from him our regeneration, so we are also by the same Spirit _assured of our adoption_. Because being _sons we are also heirs, heirs of |God|, and joint-heirs with |Christ|_, by the same Spirit we have the _pledge_, or rather the _earnest of our inheritance. For he which establisheth us in |Christ|, and hath anointed us is |God|; who hath also sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of his Spirit in our hearts_: So that _we are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance_. The Spirit of God, as given unto us in this life, is to be looked upon as an earnest, being part of that reward which is promised, and, upon performance of the covenant which God hath made with us, certainly to be received.”

Your Lordship observed, that “the interpretation of those passages, which relate to the _Unction from the Holy One_, depends on the sense of those other passages of holy scripture, particularly, those in St. _John_’s gospel.” Now if so, then these words fix the sense of six out of the seven texts in question: and every one of them, in the judgment of this writer, describes the _ordinary gifts_ bestowed on all Christians.

It now rests with your Lordship, to take your choice; either to condemn or to acquit both. Either your Lordship must condemn Bishop _Pearson_ for an _enthusiast_, (a man no ways inferior to Bishop _Chrysostom_:) or you must acquit me: for I have his express authority on my side, concerning every text which I affirm to belong to all Christians.

24. But I have greater authority than his, and such as I reverence, only less than that of the oracles of God. I mean, that of our own church. I shall close this head, by setting down what occurs in her authentic records, concerning either our _receiving the Holy Ghost_, or his _ordinary_ operations in all true Christians.

In her daily service, she teaches us all to _beseech_ God, _to grant us his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him which we do at this present, and that the rest of our life may be pure and holy_: To pray for _our Sovereign Lord the King_, that God would _replenish him with the grace of his Holy Spirit_; for _all the Royal Family_, that they may be _endued with his Holy Spirit_, and _enriched with his heavenly grace_: for all the clergy and people, that he would _send down upon them the healthful Spirit of his grace_: for _the Catholick Church_, that _it may be guided and governed by his good Spirit_: and for all therein who at any time _make_ their _common supplication unto_ him, that _the fellowship_ or communication _of the Holy Ghost may be with them all evermore_.

Her collects are full of petitions to the same effect: “Grant that we may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit.¹――――Grant that in all our sufferings here, for the testimony of thy truth, we may by faith behold the glory that shall be revealed, and _being filled with the Holy Ghost_, may love and bless our persecutors.² Send thy Holy Ghost and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity.³ O Lord, from whom all good things do come, grant to us thy humble servants, that by thy _holy inspiration_ we may think those things that are good, and by thy merciful guidance may perform the same.⁴ Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort.⁵ (_N. B._ The church here teaches all Christians to claim _the Comforter_, in virtue of the promise made _John xiv._) Grant us, Lord, we beseech thee, the Spirit, to think and do always such things as be rightful.⁶ O God, forasmuch as without thee, we are not able to please thee, merciful grant that thy Holy Spirit, may in all things direct and rule our hearts.⁷ Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by _the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit_, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name.⁸”

¹ _Collect for Christmas-Day._

² _St. Stephen’s Day._

³ _Quinquagesima Sunday._

⁴ _5th Sunday after Easter._

⁵ _Sunday after Ascension Day._

⁶ _9th Sunday after Trinity._

⁷ _19th Sunday after Trinity._

⁸ _Communion Office._

“Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant (or this person) that he may be born again.――Give thy Holy Spirit to these persons (_N. B._ already baptized) that they may continue thy servants.”

“Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these persons by water and the Holy Ghost――Strengthen them with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them the manifold gifts of thy grace.” _Office of Confirmation._

From these passages it may sufficiently appear, for what purposes every Christian, according to the doctrine of the church of _England_, does now _receive the Holy Ghost_. But this will be still more clear from those that follow: wherein the reader may likewise observe, a plain, rational sense of God’s _revealing_ himself to us, of the _inspiration_ of the Holy Ghost, and of a believer’s _feeling_ in himself _the mighty working_ of the Spirit of Christ.

25. “God gave them of old grace to be his children, as he doth us now. But now, by the coming of our Saviour Christ, _we have received_ more abundantly _the_ Spirit _of_ God in our hearts.” _Homily on Faith._