Page images
PDF
EPUB

I come now directly to your letter, in hopes of establishing a good understanding between us. I agreed to suspend, for a twelvemonth, our stated preaching at Huddersfield, which had been there these many years. If this answered your end, I am glad: my end it did not answer at all. Instead of coming nearer to me, you got farther off. I heard of it from every quarter: though few knew that I did; for I saw no cause to speak against you, because you did against me. I wanted you to do more, not less good, and therefore durst not do or say any thing to hinder it. And lest I should hinder it, I will make a farther trial, and suspend the preaching at Huddersfield for another year.

1. To clear the case between us a little farther, I must now adopt your words, "I, no less than you, preach Justification by Faith only, the absolute necessity of Holiness, the increasing mortification of sin, and the rejection of all past experiences and attainments. 1 abhor, as you do, all Antinomian abuse of the doctrine of Christ, and desire to see my people walking even as he walked. Is it then worth while, in order to gratify a few bigotted persons, or for the sake of the minute differences between us," to encourage "all the train of evils which follow contention for opinions, in little matters as much as in great?"

And yet I

I teach, as

2. If I was as strenuous with regard to Perfection on one side, as you have been on the other, I should deny you to be a sufficient preacher: but this I never did. assure you, I can advance such reasons for all would puzzle you and all that condemn me, to answer : but I am sick of disputing. Let them beat the air, and triumph without an opponent.

3. "None, you say, preach in your houses, who do not hold the very same doctrine with you." This is not exactly the case. You are welcome to preach in any of those houses: as I know we agree in the main points: and wherein soever we differ, you would not preach there contrary to me. "But would it not give you pain to have any other teacher come among those committed to your charge, so as to have your plan disconcerted, your labours depreci

ated, and the affections of your flock alienated?" It has given me pain when I had reason to fear this was done, both at Leeds, Birstal, and elsewhere. And I was “under a temptation of speaking against you :" but I refrained even among my intimate friends. So far was I from publickly warning my people against one I firmly believed to be much better than myself.

4. Indeed I trust "the bad blood is now taken away.” Let it return no more. Let us begin such a correspondence as has never been yet, and let us avow it before all mankind. Not content with not weakening each other's hands, or speaking against each other, directly or indirectly, (which may be effectually done under the notion of exposing this and that error,) let us defend each other's characters to the uttermost against either ill or well-meaning evil-speakers. I am not satisfied with, "Be very civil to the Methodists, but have nothing to do with them." No: I desire to have a league offensive and defensive, with every soldier of Christ. We have not only one faith, one hope, one Lord, but are directly engaged in one warfare. We are carrying the war into the devil's own quarters, who therefore summons all his hosts to war. Come then, ye that love him, to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty! I am now well nigh Miles emeritus, Senex, Sexagenarius. Yet I trust to fight a little longer. Come and strengthen the hands, till you supply the place of

Your weak, but affectionate Brother,
JOHN WESLEY.

TO MRS. A. F.

October 12, 1764.

MY DEAR SISTER,

THAT great truth, "That we are saved by Faith," will never be worn out: and that sanctifying as well as justifying faith, is the free gift of God. Now, with God

one day is as a thousand years. It plainly follows, that the

*

quantity of time is nothing to him: centuries, years, months, days, hours, and moments, are exactly the same. Conse. quently, he can as well sanctify in a day after we are justified, as a hundred years. There is no difference at all, unless we suppose him to be such a one as ourselves. Accordingly we see in fact, that some of the most unquestionable witnesses of sanctifying grace, were sanctified within a few days after they were justified. I have seldom known so devoted a soul, as SH, at Macclesfield, who was sanctified within nine days after she was convinced of sin. She was then twelve years old, and I believe was never afterwards heard to speak an improper word, or known to do an improper thing. Her look struck an awe into all that saw her. She is now in Abraham's Bosom.

Although, therefore, it usually pleases God to interpose some time between Justification and Sanctification, yet (as is expressly observed in the Farther Thoughts) we must not fancy this to be an invariable rule. All who think this, must think we are sanctified by works, or (which comes to the same) by sufferings. For otherwise, what is time necessary for? It must be either to do or to suffer. Whereas if nothing be required but simple faith, a moment is as good

as an age.

R

The truth is, we are continually forming general rules from our own particular experience. Thus S R having gone about, and about, herself, which took up a considerable time, might very naturally suppose, all who are sanctified must stay for it near as long a time as she did. Again, if God has so rooted and grounded her in love, (which I neither affirm nor deny) that she cannot now fall from him, she very naturally thinks, this is the case with all that are sanctified. Formerly S. C. drew the same inference from her own experience, and was as positive that she could not fall from that state, as S. R- can be

now.

But "none can be sanctified without a deep knowledge of themselves, and of the devices of Satan." They may, without the latter; which God will give them in due time.

And the former he can give in a moment: and frequently does, of which we have fresh instances almost every day.

In the "Thoughts on Perfection," it is observed, that before any can be assured, they are saved from sin, they must not only feel no sin, but "have a direct witness" of that salvation. And this several have had as clear as S. R- has, who afterwards fell from that salvation: altho' S. R-, to be consistent with her scheme, must deny they ever had it; yea, and must affirm, that witness was either from nature or from the devil. If it was really from God, is he well pleased with this?

I know not how to reconcile speaking sharply or roughly, or even a seeming want of meekness, with perfection. And yet I am fearful of condemning whom God has not condemned. What I cannot understand I leave to Him.

How is it, that you make me write longer letters to you than I do almost to any one else? I know not how, I find a greater concern for your welfare. I want you to be exactly right. This occasions my not thinking much of any pains, that may give you help or satisfaction. The Lord touch your heart now, that all your tempers, thoughts, words, and works, may be holiness unto our God!

I am your's, &c.

JOHN WESLEY.

TO MR. HOSMER.-ON THE ADAMIC LAW.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne, June 7, 1761.

MY DEAR BROTHER,

I APPREHEND, if you will give another careful reading to those four pages, 244-247, you will find all your objections anticipated or answered. However, I do not think much of answering them over again. Your words.

are,

You say, "A mistake is not a sin, if love is the sole principle of action. Yet it is a transgression of the perfect law." Therefore perfect love is not the perfect law! Most sure.

For by the perfect law I mean, that given to Adam at his creation. But "The loving God with all his heart" was not the whole of that law: it implied abundantly more: even thinking, speaking, and acting right, in every instance, which he was then able, and therefore obliged to do. But none of his descendants are able to do this. Therefore love is the fulfilling of their law.

Perhaps you had not adverted to this. The law of love, which is the whole law given to us, is only one branch of that perfect law, which was given to Adam in the beginning, His law was far wider than ours, as his faculties were more extensive. Consequently, many things might be transgressions of the latter, which were not of the former.

"But if ignorance be a transgression of the perfect law" -Whoever said or thought so? Ignorance is not: but mistake is. And this Adam was able to avoid: that kind of ignorance which was in him not constraining him to mistake, as our's frequently does.

"But is a voluntary transgression of a known law,' a proper definition of sin ?" I think it is, of all such sin as is imputed to our condemnation. And it is a definition which has passed uncensured in the church, for at least fifteen hundred years.

To propose any objections that naturally arise, is right: but beware you do not seek objections. If you once begin this, you will never have done. Indeed this whole affair is a strife of words. The thing is plain. All in the body are liable to mistakes, practical as well as speculative. Shall we call them sins or not? I answer again and again, Call them just what you please. JOHN WESLEY.

TO MR. ALEXANDER COATS.

MY DEAR BROTHER,

Otley, July 7, 1761.

THE Perfection I teach, is Perfect Love; loving

God with all the heart receiving Christ as Prophet, Priest,

[blocks in formation]
« EelmineJätka »