Xxii. Xxiii.
the parents certified they were weak?” Not because I had any scruple, but in obedience to the Rubric. So here is so self-inconsistency.)
XXII.
MR. W. NEVER ADOPTED MR. LAW’S SCHEME. VS. MR. W.
HIGHLY APPROVED OF MR. LAW.
These propositions are not contradictory. I might highly approve of him, and yet not adopt his scheme. How will Mr. H. prove that I did? or that I contradict myself on this head? Why thus: —
72. “I had been eight years at Oxford before I read any of Mr. Law’s writings. And when I did, I was so far from making them my creed, that I had objections to almost every page.” (Page 135.) (“To instruct a person in the nature of Christianity, I fixed an hour a day, to read with her in Mr. Law’s treatise on ‘Christian Perfection.’” I did so. And an excellent book it is, though liable to many objections.)
“Another little company of us met: We sung, read a little of Mr. Law, and then conversed.” (True; but neither does this prove that I adopted his scheme.)
73. “I believe the Mystic writers to be one great Anti-Christ.” (I retract this. It is far too strong. But observe, I never contradicted it till now!)
74. “Mr. F. affirms, Solomon is the chief of Mystics; and Mr. W. acquiesces in the affirmation.” (I do not. I affirm no such thing. Therefore all Mr. H. builds upon this is only a castle in the air.)
XXIII.
ENOCH AND ELIJAH ARE IN HEAVEN. VS. ENOCH AND
ELIJAH ARE NOT IN HEAVEN.
75. “Enoch and Elijah entered at once into the highest degree of glory.” (“Enoch and Elijah are not in heaven, but only in paradise.” (Page 138.)) “Notes on the New Testament, John 3:13, first edition.” But why is Mr. H. so careful to name the first edition? Because in the second the mistake is corrected. Did he know this? And could he avail himself of a mistake which he knew was removed before he wrote!
XXIV.
FOR SINLESS PERFECTION. VS. AGAINST
SINLESS PERFECTION.
Upon this head Mr. H. employs his whole strength. I will therefore the more carefully weigh what he advances; only premising, before I descend to particulars, two general observations:
(1.) Out of the twenty-five passages cited for perfection, seventeen are taken from my brother’s Hymns. These, therefore, strike wide. Whatever they prove, they cannot prove that I contradict myself.
(2.) Out of the twenty-five cited against perfection, fourteen are cited from the sermon on “Sin in Believers.” Do I mean, in such believers as are “perfected in love?” Mr. H. himself knows I do not. Why then every one of these fourteen arguments is an abuse both upon me and his readers. It is the most egregious trifling that can be conceived. I affirm, “Those perfected in love are saved from inward sin.” To prove I contradict myself herein, fourteen passages are alleged, wherein I affirm, “We are not saved from inward sin till we are ‘perfected in love.’”
(3.) The same fallacy is used in every instance, when some of my words are set in opposition to others. The sum is, — weak believers, babes in Christ, are not, adult believers are, saved from inward sin. And I still aver, there is no contradiction in this, if I know what a contradiction means.
Now to the proofs: —
76. “The Son hath made them who are thus ‘born of God’ free from pride.” (“They are sensible of pride remaining in their hearts.”) They? Who? Not those who are thus “born of God,” who are “perfected in love.”
77. “From the iniquity of pride, And self, I shall be free.” That is, when I am “perfected in love.” (“God’s children are daily sensible of pride and self-will.” That is, till they are “perfected in love.”
78. “They are freed from wanderings in prayer.” (Is this spoken of all believers? Mr. H. knows it is not.
79. “Christians are saved from all sin, from all unrighteousness.” (True, adult Christians.)
80. “They (adult Christians) are freed from all evil thoughts and evil tempers.” (“The (infant) children of God have in them sin of every king.”)
81. “They (fathers in Christ) are freed from evil thoughts.” (“The evil nature opposes the Spirit even in believers,” — till they are fathers in Christ.)
82. “Christ was free from sinful thoughts. So are they likewise,” — adult believers. (“This doctrine (that all believers are thus free) is wholly new.”)
83. “I believe some would say, ‘We trust we do keep the whole law of love.’” (“Believers are conscious of not fulfilling the whole law of love;” not till they are “perfected in love.”)
The reader will please to remember all along, the question is not whether the doctrine be right or wrong, (that has been elsewhere considered,) but whether I contradict myself. Upwards of fourscore witnesses have been already examined on this head; but no contradiction is proved yet.
84. “Some do love God with all their heart and strength.” (“They (weak believers) do not love God with all their heart and strength.”)
85. “From that hour, indwelling sin, Thou hast no place in me.” (Believer are not delivered from the being of sin till that hour.)
86. “A sinless life we live.” (“Christian Library:” Nothing.)
87. “While one evil thought can rise, I am not born again.” (My brother said so once: I never did.)
In the note annexed there are many mistakes:
(1.) “The author of this hymn did not allow anyone to be a believer, even in the lowest sense, while he found the least stirring of sin.” He did; but he took the word “born again” in too high a sense.
(2.) Yet “he supposes the most advanced believers are deeply sensible of their impurity.” He does not; neither he nor I suppose any such thing.
(3.) “He tells us in his note on Ephesians 6:13, ‘The war is perpetual.’” True: The war with “principalities and powers;” but not that “with flesh and blood.”
(4.) So you cannot reply: “Mr. W. speaks of believers of different stature.” Indeed I can; and the forgetting this is the main cause of Mr. H.’s stumbling at every step.
(5.) “The position, that any believers are totally free from sin, is diametrically opposite to Calvinism.” This is no mistake. Therefore most Calvinists hate it with a perfect hatred.
(6.) “Many of the grossest of these contradictions were published nearly at the same time; and probably Mr. W. was the same day correcting the press, both for and against sinless perfection.” An ingenious thought! but as to the truth or even probability of it, I cannot say much.
(7.) “These Hymns contain the joint sentiments of Mr. John and Mr. Charles Wesley.” Not always; so that if some of them contradict others, it does not prove that I contradict myself.
88. “Christ in a pure and sinless heart.” (“There are still two contrary principles in believers, nature and grace.” True, till they are perfect in love.
89. “Quite expel the carnal mind.” (“That there is no sin in a (weak) believer, no carnal mind, is contrary to the word of God.”)
90. “From every evil motion freed.” (“How naturally do men think, Sin has no motion; therefore it has no being!”)
But how does this prove that I contradict myself?
91. “All the struggle then is o’er.”
92. “I wrestle not now.” (These are two of my brother’s expressions, which I do not subscribe to.)
93. “God is thine: Disdain to fear The enemy within.” (“Let us watch and pray against the enemy within.”)
Are these lines cited as implying the enemy was not within? Most unhappily. They mean, the enemy which is within. For the very next words, which Mr. H. himself cited but the page before, are,
God shall in thy flesh appear,
And make an end of sin.
94. “We wrestle not with flesh and blood when” we are grown up in Christ. (“We wrestle both with flesh and blood, and with principalities,” while we are babes in Christ.
No contradiction yet.
95. “Sin shall not in our flesh remain.” “Still he (the babe in Christ) feels the remains of the old man.”
96. “I cannot rest if sin in me remains.” (“Sin remains in them still;” — in all weak believers.)
97, 98, 99. My brother’s.
100. “Do not the best of men say, ‘We groan, being burdened with the workings of inbred corruption?’” This is not the meaning of the text: The whole context shows the cause of that groaning was, their longing to be with Christ. (“We groan, being burdened with numberless infirmities, temptations, and sins.” — This is wrong. It is not the meaning of the text. I will put it out, if I live to print another edition. So just one shot in a hundred has hit the mark.)
101. “Nor does he that is born of God sin by infirmities; for his infirmities have no concurrence of his will; and without this, they are not properly sins.” — That is, they are not voluntary transgressions of a known law. (“Many infirmities remain, whereby we are daily subject to what are called ‘sins of infirmity.’ And they are in some sense sins; as being (involuntary) transgressions of the perfect law.”)
I see no contradiction here; but if there was, it ought not to have been mentioned. It could not by any generous writer; since Mr. Hill himself testifies, it was expunged before he mentioned it! But suppose it stood as at first, I flatly deny that it is any contradiction at all. These infirmities may be in some sense sins; and yet not properly so; that is, sins in an improper, but not in the proper, sense of the word.
103. But “Mr. W. has not yet determined, whether sins of surprise bring the soul under condemnation or not. However, it were to be wished, that sins of surprise and sins of infirmity too were to be declared mortal at the next Conference; since several persons who pretend to reverence Mr. W., not only fall into outrageous passions, but cozen and overreach their neighbors; and call these things little, innocent infirmities. Reader, weigh well those words of Mr. W., ‘We cannot say, either that men are or are not condemned for sins of surprise.’ And yet immediately before, he calls them transgressions, as here he calls them sins. Strange divinity this, for one who, for near forty years past, has professed to believe and teach that ‘sin is the transgression of the law,’ and that ‘the wages of sin is death.’” He then brings three instances of sins of surprise, (over and above cozening and overreaching,) drunkenness, fornication, and flying into a passion and knocking a man down; and concludes, “Mr. W. had better sleep quietly, than rise from his own pillow in order to lull his hearers asleep upon the pillow of false security, by speaking in so slight a manner of sin, and making the breach of God’s holy law a mere nothing.” (Page 111.)
104. This is a charge indeed! And it is perfectly new: I believe it was never advanced before. It will not, therefore, be improper to give it a thorough examination. It is founded on some passages in the sermon on Romans 8:1: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” In order to give a clear view of the doctrine therein delivered, I must extract the sum of the Sermon.
I show,
(1.) Who are “those that are in Christ Jesus;” — “Those who are joined to the Lord in one spirit, who dwell in Christ and Christ in them. And ‘whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not, walketh not after the flesh,’ that is, corrupt nature. These abstain from every design, and word, and work, to which the corruption of nature leads.” (Vol. V., p. 88.) “They ‘walk after the Spirit’ both in their hearts and lives. By him they are led into every holy desire, into every divine and heavenly temper, till every thought of their heart is ‘holiness to the Lord.’
“They are also led by Him into all holiness of conversation. They exercise themselves day and night, to do only the things which please God: In all their outward behavior, to follow him who left us an example that we might tread in his steps;’ in all their intercourse with their neighbor, to walk in justice, mercy, and truth; and whatsoever they do in every circumstance of life to ‘do all to the glory of God.’” (Ibid., p. 89.)
Is here any room for “cozening and overreaching;” for “flying into outrageous passions?” Does this give any countenance for “knocking men down?” for “drunkenness or fornication?”
But let us go on to the Second head: “To whom is there no condemnation? To believers in Christ, who thus ‘walk after the Spirit,’ there is no condemnation for their past sins.” (Ibid.) “Neither for present, for now transgressing the commandments of God; for they do not transgress them. This is a proof of their love of God, that they keep his commandments.” (Ibid., p. 90.) “They are not condemned,
(3.) For inward sin, so long as they do not yield thereto; so long as they maintain a continual war with all sin, with pride, anger, desire, so that the flesh hath no dominion over them, but they still ‘walk after the Spirit.’” (Ibid., p. 91.) Is any encouragement given here to cozeners or whoremongers?
It follows, “They are not condemned for sins of infirmity, as they are usually called. Perhaps it were advisable rather to call them infirmities, that we may not seem to give any countenance to sin, or to extenuate it in any degree, by thus coupling it with infirmity. But, if we must use such an ambiguous and dangerous expression, by sins of infirmity I would mean, such involuntary failings as the saying a thing we believe true, though in fact it prove to be false; or the hurting our neighbor without knowing or designing it, perhaps when we designed to do him good.” (Ibid., p. 92.) What pretense has Mr. H. from these words to flourish away upon my “strange divinity;” and to represent me as giving men a handle to term gross sins innocent infirmities?
But now comes the main point: “It is more difficult to determine concerning those which are usually styled sins of surprise: As when one who commonly in his patience possesses his soul, on a sudden or violent temptation, speaks or acts in a manner not consistent with the royal law of love.” (For instance: You have the gout. A careless man treads on your foot. You violently push him away, and, it may be, cry out, “Get away! Get you out of my sight!”) “Perhaps it is not easy to fix a general rule concerning transgressions of this nature. We cannot say either that men are, or that they are not, condemned for sins of surprise in general.” (Pages 152, 153.)
“Reader,” says Mr. H., “let me beg thee to weigh well the foregoing words.” I say so too. I go on: “But it seems, whenever a believer is overtaken in a fault, there is more or less condemnation, as there is more or less concurrence of his will. Therefore, some sins of surprise bring much guilt and condemnation. For in some instances our being surprised may be owing to some culpable neglect, or to a sleepiness of soul, which might have been prevented or shaken off before the temptation came. The falling even by surprise, in such an instance, exposes the sinner to condemnation, both from God and his own conscience.
“On the other hand, there may be sudden assaults, which he hardly could foresee, by which he may be born down, suppose into a degree of anger, or thinking evil of another, with scarce any concurrence of the will. Now, in such a case, the jealous God would undoubtedly show him that he had done foolishly. He would be convinced of having swerved from the perfect law, and consequently grieved with a godly sorrow, and lovingly ashamed before God. Yet need he not come into condemnation. In the midst of that sorrow and shame, he can still say, ‘The Lord is my strength and my song; he is also become my salvation.’” (Page 154.) Now, what can any impartial person think of Mr. H.’s eloquence on this head? What a representation has he given of my doctrine, with regard to infirmities and sins of surprise? Was ever anything more unjust? Was ever anything more cruel? Do I here “lull my readers asleep on the pillow of false security? Do I “speak in a light manner of sin?” or “make the breach of God’s holy law a mere nothing?” What excuse can be made for pouring out all this flood of calumny? Can anything be termed “bearing false witness against our neighbor,” if this is not? Am I indeed a loose casuist? Do any of my writings give countenance to sin? Not so: God knows, Mr. Hill knows, Mr. Romaine, who corrected this tract, knows it well. So does Mr. Madan; yea, so do all who read what I write, unless they willfully shut their eyes.
105. “Thus have I at length,” says Mr. H., “brought this extraordinary farrago to a conclusion. Not because I could not have found many more inconsistencies.” (Page 142.) Yes, another hundred, such as these. But see a group of them at once: “His extract from Bishop Beveridge is flatly contradicted in his edition of ‘John Goodwin.’ Again: Goodwin is flatly contradicted by his sermon on ‘The Lord our Righteousness.’ This sermon is contradicted in his ‘Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion.’ This Preservative is itself contradicted by his ‘Abstract from Dr. Preston.’ This Abstract is itself contradicted by his edition of ‘Baxter’s Aphorisms.’ And these are again flatly contradicted by his ‘Extract from Bishop Beveridge.’ And this is again flatly contradicted by his own ‘Thoughts on Imputed Righteousness.’ Thus the wheel runs round!” Thus Mr. H.’s head runs round with more haste than good speed. (If this curious paragraph be not rather, as I suspect, supplied by another hand; even as Sternhold’s Psalms are now and then eked out by N. N., or William Wisdom.) He forgets that generals prove nothing; and that he has sadly failed in his particular charges; just an hundred, out of an hundred and one, having proved void. So that now I have full right to say, Whence arises this charge of inconsistency and self contradiction? Merely from straining, winding to and fro, and distorting a few innocent words. For wherein have I contradicted myself, taking, words in their unforced, natural construction, in any one respect, with regard to justification, since the year 1738?
106. But Mr. H.’s head is so full of my self-inconsistency, that he still blunders on: “Mr. W.’s wavering disposition is not an affair of yesterday. Mr. Delamotte spake to him on this head more than thirty years ago.” (Page 143.) He never spake to me on this head at all. Ask him. He is still alive. “He has been tossed from one system to another, from the time of his ordination to the present moment.” Nothing can be more false; as not only my “Journals,” but all my writings, testify. “And he himself cannot but acknowledge that both his friends and foes have accused him of his unsettled principles in religion.” Here is artifice! Would any man living, who does not know the fact, suppose that a gentleman would face a man down, in so peremptory a manner, unless the thing were absolutely true? And yet it is quite the reverse. “He himself cannot but acknowledge! “I acknowledge no such thing. My friends have oftener accused me of being too stiff in my opinions, than too flexible. My enemies have accused me of both; and of everything besides. The truth is, from the year 1725, I saw more and more of the nature of inward religion, chiefly by reading the writings of Mr. Law, and a few other mystic writers. Yet I never was “in the way of Mysticism” at all; this is another mistake. Although I did not clearly see that we “are saved by faith” till the year 1738, I then published the sermon on “Salvation by Faith,” every sentence of which I subscribe to now.
107. But he “was too scrupulous about using the word condition.” (Page 143.) I was so, till I was convinced by Dr. Church, that it was a very innocent word; and one that none of the Reformers, English or foreign, objected to. All this time I leaned towards Calvinism, though more in expression than sentiment. “And now he fairly gives up the necessity of a clear belief of justification by faith alone!” That is, I say, A man may be saved, who is not clear in his judgment concerning it. I do; I dare not “rank Mr. Law, and all his admirers, among the hosts of Diabolonians.” Nay, more: “I have proved that he makes man’s righteousness the procuring cause of his acceptance with God; and his salvation, from first to last, to depend upon the intrinsic merit of his own unassisted works.” (Page 144.) I think Mr. H. “is how got to his ne plas ultra,” unless he has a mind to prove that Mr. W. is an horse.
108. “I expect you will tell me that I have exposed Mr. W., particularly in the foregoing contrast. That Mr. W. is exposed, I allow; but that I have exposed him, I deny.” Who was it then? Why, “out of his own mouth all that I have brought against him proceeds.”
Not so: All that I have wrote, except one sentence out of an hundred and one, is well consistent with itself, provided the words be taken in their plain, natural sense, and one part of them in connection with the other. But whoever will use Mr. H.’s art of twisting and torturing words, may make them say anything, and extract Pelagianism, Arianism, or anything he pleases, out of anything that can be spoken. By this art, he that cries out against Mr. F.’s art has found, that is, created, above an hundred contradictions in my works, and “could find abundance more.” Ay, five hundred; under his forming hand contradictions spring up as quick as mushrooms. And he that reads only (as is the manner of a thousand readers) the running title at the top of each page, —
For election,
For sinless perfection,
For imputed righteousness,
Against election,
Against sinless perfection,
Against imputed righteousness, — and so on, will readily say, “What a heap of contradictions — flat, palpable contradictions — is here!” Here! Where “Why, at the top of every page.” True; and there lies the strength of the cause. The propositions themselves are plain enough; but neither Mr. H. nor any man living can prove them.
109. But, if so, if all this labored contrast be only the work of a creative imagination, what has Mr. H., the cat’s paw of a party, been doing all this time? Has he not been abundantly “doing evil, that good might come,” that the dear decree of reprobation might stand? Has he not been “saying all manner of evil falsely;” pouring out slander like water, a first, a second, a third time, against one that never willingly offended him? And what recompence can he make (be his opinions right or wrong) for having, so deeply injured me, without any regard either to mercy or truth? If he (not I myself) has indeed exposed me in so unjust and inhuman a manner, what amends can he make, as a Christian and a gentleman, to God, to me, or to the world? Can he gather up the foul, poisonous water which he has so abundantly poured out? If he still insists he has done me no wrong, he has only spoken “the truth in love;” if he is resolved at all hazards to fight it out, I will meet him on his own ground. Waving all things else, I fix on this point: “Is that scurrilous hotch-potch, which he calls a ‘Farrago,’ true or false?” will he defend or retract it? An hundred and one propositions are produced as mine, which are affirmed to contradict other propositions of mine. Do I in these hundred and one instances contradict myself, or do I not? Observe: The question is, whether I contradict myself; not whether I contradict somebody else; be it Mr. Baxter, Goodwin, Fletcher, the “Christian Library,” or even my own brother: These are not myself. “Nay, but you have established them.” If I publish them ten times over, still they are not myself. I insist upon it, that no man’s words but my own can ever prove that I contradict myself. Now, if Mr. H. scorns to yield, let him fall to work, and prove by my own words, that I contradict myself (that is the present question) in these hundred instances. If he can prove this, I am a blunderer; I must plead Guilty to the charge. If he cannot, he is one of the most cruel and inhuman slanderers that ever set pen to paper.
110. I bless God, that the words cited from the sermon on “A Catholic Spirit” do quite “come to myself;” not indeed as I am painted by Mr. Hill, but as I really am. From the year 1738, I have not been “unsettled as to any fundamental doctrine of the gospel.” No, not in one; I am as clear of this charge, as of that wonderful one advanced in the note, page 146: “Though this Sermon be entitled ‘Catholic Spirit,’ yet it inculcates an attendance upon one only congregation; in other words, Hear me, and those I send out, and no one else.” Mr. Hill himself knows better; he knows I advise all of the Church to hear the parish Minister. I do not advise even Dissenters of any kind, not to hear their own Teachers. But I advise all, Do not “heap to yourselves Preachers, having itching ears.” Do not run hither and thither to hear every new thing, else you will be established in nothing. “However, it is by stratagems of this sort, that he holds so many souls in his shackles, and prevents them from coming to the knowledge of all the glorious truths of the gospel.”
Observe, gospel is with Mr. Hill the same as Calvinism. So where he says, “There is no gospel,” he means no predestination. By the same figure of speech, some of his admirers used to say, “There is no honey in the book.” Here lies the core; this is the wrong, for which the bigots of this gospel will never forgive me. And all those are such, who “rank all election-doubters among Diabolonians.” Such is Mr. Hill, a bigot in grain, while he sets his hand to that gentle sentence. Nay, further, says he, “I cannot help informing my readers,” (no, if he did, he must burst,) “that in the life of Mr. Philip Henry, published in his ‘Christian Library,’ he has artfully left out Mr. Henry’s Confession of faith.” Artfully! No; honestly; according to the open profession in the preface cited before.
111. Yet Mr. Hill, this Mr. Hill, says to Mr. Fletcher, “Suffer not bitter words and calumnious expressions to disguise themselves under the appearance of plainness.” (Page 147.) Bitter words! Can Mr. Hill imagine there is any harm in these? Mr. Hill that cites the judicious Mr. Toplady! that admires the famous “Eleven Letters,” which are bitterness double distilled! which overflow with little else but calumnious expressions from the beginning to the end! Mr. Hill that himself wrote the “Review,” and the “Farrago!” And does he complain of Mr. Fletcher’s bitterness? Why, he may be a little bitter; but not Mr. Fletcher. Altering the person alters the thing! “If it was your bull that gored mine,” says the judged in the fable, “that is another case!”
112. Two objections to my personal conduct, I have now briefly to consider: First, “Mr. Wesley embraced Mr. Shirley as a friend at the Conference, and then directly went out to give the signal for war.” (Page 150.) This is partly true. It is true, that, although I was not ignorant of his having deeply injured me, yet I freely forgave him at the Conference, and again “embraced him as a friend.” But it is not true, that I “directly went out to give the signal for war.” “Nay, why else did you consent to the publishing of Mr. Fletcher’s Letters?” Because I judged it would be an effectual means of undoing the mischief which Mr. Shirley had done: Not that I am now sorry (though I was) for what he has done, for his publication of that bitter Circular Letter: For I now clearly discern the hand of God throughout that whole affair. Both my brother and I still indulged the fond hope of living in peace with our warm Calvinist brethren; but we now give it up; our eyes are open; we see what we have to expect. We look for neither mercy nor justice at their hands; if we find any, it will be clear gains.
113. The Second objection is, “Mr. Wesley acknowledged the unguarded manner in which the Minutes were drawn up; and yet immediately after defended them.” I answer, How did I “acknowledge the unguarded manner?” The plain case was this: I seek peace, and would do anything for it, which I can with a safe conscience. On this principle it was, that when Mr. Shirley read over his Declaration, (I say his; for it was he drew it up, not I,) and asked, if we agreed thereto, I was heartily desirous to agree with him as far as possible. In order to this, after altering some words, I asked our brethren, if they were willing to sign it. One immediately said, “The Minutes are not unguarded; they are guarded enough.” I said, “They are guarded enough for you; but not for those who seek occasion against us.” And observe, it is only in this sense, that I subscribed to that expression. But I will not affirm, that my love of peace did not carry me a little too far. I know not but it would have been better, not to have signed the paper at all.
114. So much for the Minutes. Perhaps it may be expected, that I should also take some notice of what Mr. Hill says concerning perfection. All his arguments indeed, and ten times more, I have answered over and over. But if it is required, I will answer once more; only premising, by that perfection, to which St. Paul directs Mr. Hill and me to go on, (Hebrews 6:1,) I understand neither more nor less, than what St. John terms “perfect love;” (1 John 4:18;) and our Lord, “loving the Lord our God with all our heart, and mind, and soul, and strength.” If you choose to call this “sinful perfection,” (rather than sinless,) you have my free leave. Mr. Hill’s main argument against this is, that “it is Popish doctrine.” How does this appear? O, “Luther says so.” (Page 25.) This will not do; it is only second-hand evidence. “It crept into the Church first in the fifth century, and has been since almost generally received in the Church of Rome.” (Page 49.) How is this proved? either that the doctrine of perfect love crept first into the Church in the fifth century? or, that it has been since almost generally received in the Church of Rome? Why, “we may very readily perceive this, by the following extract from Bishop Cowper.” I answer,
(1.) This is but second-hand evidence still.
(2.) It is wide of the mark.
For this whole extract says not a word about the Church of Rome. It contains only a few citations from St. Augustine and St. Bernard, foreign to the present question; and one from St. Ambrose, if it be possible, more foreign still. None of these touch either of the points in question: “This doctrine crept into the Church in the fifth century;” or, “It has been (ever) since almost generally received in the Church of Rome.”
Here I must beg leave to put Mr. Hill in mind of one stated rule in controversy: We are to take no authorities at second-hand, but always recur to the originals. Consequently, words of St. Bernard, or twenty Saints more, copied from Bishop Cowper, prove just nothing. Before we can urge the authority of St. Bernard or Ambrose, we must consult the authors themselves, and tell our readers what edition we use, with the page where the words are found; otherwise they cannot form a judgment either of the fairness of the quotation, or of the sense and weight of it. Hitherto, then, we have not one tittle of proof, that this is a Popish doctrine; that it ever was, or is now, “almost generally received in the Church of Rome;” (although, if it had, this would be no conclusive argument against it, as neither is it conclusive against the doctrine of the blessed Trinity;) I do not know that it ever was: But this I know; it has been solemnly condemned by the Church of Rome. It has been condemned by the Pope and his whole conclave, even in this present century. In the famous bull Unigenitus, (so called from the first words, Unigenitus Dei filius, f48 they utterly condemn the uninterrupted act (of faith and love, which some then talked of, of continually rejoicing, praying, and giving thanks) as dreadful heresy! Now, in what public act of the Church of Rome is the doctrine of perfection maintained? Till this is produced, I pray let us hear no more, that perfection is a Popish doctrine.
115. However, “the distinction between sins and innocent infirmities is derived from the Romish Church.” (Page 56.) How does this appear? Thus: “Two of her devoted champions, Lindenus and Andradius, distinguish between infirmities and sins.” Lindenus and Andradius! Who are they? From what country did they come? I do not know the men. One of them, for aught I know, might serve as an interpreter at the Council of Trent? What then? Was he an authorized interpreter of the doctrines of the Church? Nay, and how do you know that they did speak of “little, trifling faults,” or of “minute and trivial sins?” Did you ever read them? Pray, what edition of their works do you use? and in what page do these words occur? Till we know this, that there may be an opportunity of examining the books, (though I fear scarce worth examining,) it is doing too much honor to such quotations, to take any notice of them at all.
26. Well, now for the buskins! Now, spirat tragicum satis! f49 “And this is the doctrine which is preached to more than thirty thousand souls, of which Mr. W. has the charge. Then I am sure it is high time, that not only the Calvinist Ministers, but all that wish well to the interest of Protestantism,” (so Mr. S. said before,) “should, in a load, protest against such licentious tenets.” “Blow ye the trumpet in Sion!” Gird on your armor! Make ye yourselves ready for battle! Again the trumpet sounds: — A crusade! An holy war! Down with the heretics! But hold! What spirit are you of? Are you followers of peace? Then “bring forth your strong reasons; speak the truth in love,” and we are ready to meet you. But really all this talk of my licentious doctrine is a mere copy of Mr. H.’s countenance. He knows, and all in England know, (whoever have heard my name,) that it is not too loose, but too strict, doctrine I am constantly accused of. Therefore, all this bluster, about my superseding the law, has not only no truth, but no color, no plausibility. And when Mr. H. calls so gravely for Dr. Crisp to “sweep away all my Antinomian rubbish,” shall we laugh or weep?
Cuivis facilis rigidi censura cachinni. f50
Rather let us drop a tear on human infirmity.
117. So much for the First grand argument against perfection, that it is “generally received in the Church of Rome.” The Second is: “It was generally received among the ranting Anabaptists in Germany.” (Page 49.) What author of note testifies this? I allow no second-hand authority; but desire to know what German historian of credit has recorded it; and in what page of his works. When this is ascertained, then we may observe, it proves just nothing.
A Third argument against perfection is, that “it was maintained by many wild Ranters in London.” Wild enough! although no stress is to be laid on Mr. H.’s informations concerning them; some of which are altogether false, and the rest imperfect enough. But suppose they were all true, what would follow? Many hearers abusing the doctrines I teach, no more prove that those doctrines are false, than the German Ranters proved that Luther’s were so.
118. Is it another argument, that “the monstrous doctrine of perfection turns some of its deluded votaries into monsters? This may be proved from the cases of Bell and Harris; the former of whom prophesied that the world would be at an end the last of February; the latter was seized with raving madness, and died blaspheming in a most dreadful manner.” (Page 44.) It would be strange if George Bell were not brought upon the stage, as he has been an hundred times over. As for poor Benjamin Harris, I believe, as a punishment for his pride and uncharitableness, God permitted him to be struck in an instant with diabolical madness. But it did not continue to his death; he did not die blaspheming. I saw him myself quiet and composed; and be calmly delivered up his soul to God.
See another instance: “A friend of mine lately informed me that an eminent Preacher of perfection told him, that he had not sinned for some years, and that the Holy Ghost had descended and sat on him and many others in a visible manner, as he did upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost.” Please to name the man; otherwise an hundred such tales will weigh nothing with men of sense and candor.
Behold a Fourth: “Last year I myself conversed with a gentlewoman of such high perfection, that she said, no man could teach her anything, and went to no place of worship for years together: However, she was a scold, and beat her maid.” Perhaps so. And what is that to me? If she is a member of our society, tell me her name; and she will be in it no longer. This is our glorying. It must be, that many members of our society will, from time to time, grow weary of well doing; yea, that some will fall into sin. But as soon as this appears, they have no more place among us. We regard no man’s person, high or low, rich or poor. A disorderly walker cannot continue with us.
Again: “One told God in prayer, that she was perfect, as God himself was perfect. Another prayed, ‘Grant, O Lord, that all here present may be perfect, as I am perfect.’” (Page 45.) Till you name the men, this, too, must go for nothing. But suppose it all true, what will it prove? Only that there are madmen in the world.
“I could also tell him of a woman, who was so perfect, that she tried to sin, and could not.” Pray name her.
“Mr. W. must also well remember a certain perfect married lady, who was got with child by a perfect Preacher.” I do not remember any such thing. I never heard of it before.
119. But “I hate,” says Mr. H., “the law of retaliation;” — truly one would not have thought it; — “and would not have mentioned these things, but that you set me the example,” that is, but by way of retaliation. “Should you doubt the truth of these instances, I will lead you to the fountain-head of my intelligence.” That will not do. In order to be even with Mr. F., you have told seven shocking stories. Several of these I know to be false; I doubt if any, but that of George Bell, be true. And now you offer to lead Mr. F. to the fountain-head of your intelligence! Probably to one or two renegade Methodists, who court the world by slandering their brethren! “But Mr. W. adopts this way.” No, never. In my Letter to Mr. Hervey, I occasionally name two famous men; but I do not slander them. In my Journals, I name several others. This is above board; but Mr. H. stabs in the dark. He gives us no names, no places of abode; but casts arrows and firebrands abroad; and, let them light where they may, on guilty or guiltless, of that he takes no care.
120. It remains only, to consider the queries which Mr. H. addresses directly to me: —
(1.) “Did not you, in administering the sacrament, a few years ago, to a perfect society in West-Street chapel, leave out the Confession?” Yes, and many times since. When I am straitened for time, (as I generally am there on a Monday,) I begin the Communion-service at, “We do not presume to come to this thy table.” One Monday, Mr. Madan desired to stay. Here, I suppose, is “the fountain-head of this intelligence.”
(2.) “Did not one of the enthusiasts then say, he had heard a voice telling him, he was all holiness to the Lord?”
Possibly so; but I remember nothing of it.
(3.) “Did not a second declare the same thing?”
Not that I remember.
(4.) “Did not George Bell say, he should never die?”
He often did, if not then.
(5.) “Did not one present confirm it?”
Not unlikely; but I do not remember it.
(6.) “Did not another perfect brother say, he believed the millennium was near; for there had been more Constables sworn in that year than heretofore?”
Are you sure he was a perfect brother; that is, one that professed so to be? As for me, I can say nothing about it; for I neither remember the man nor the words.
“This I have put down verbatim from the mouth of a judicious friend then present; but from that time he has been heartily sick of sinless perfection.” Say of “perfect love.”
Is it only from that time that Mr. Madan has been sick of it? Was he not sick of it before? And did he then, or at any time since, say one word to me of any of these things? No; but he treasured them up for ten years; and then tells Mr. Hill, that he might tell them to all the world.
(7.) “Do not you know a Clergyman, once closely connected with you, who refused a great witness for perfection the sacrament, because he had been detected in bed with a perfect sister?” No; I never heard of it before. Surely Mr. M——d is not fallen so low, as to invent such a tale as this!
I need not say anything to your last anecdote, since you (for once!) put a candid construction upon my words. If I did speak them, which I can neither affirm nor deny, undoubtedly my meaning was, (as yourself observe,) “Though I have been holding forth the imputed righteousness of Christ to a mixed congregation, yet I think it right to caution you of the society how you abuse that doctrine, which to some, who turn it into licentiousness is a smooth doctrine, of which you ought to beware.” (Page 61.) But your friend, it seems, who gave you this account, did not put so candid a construction on my words.
You say, “He was so struck, as hardly to refrain from speaking to you in the chapel. And from that hour he gave up all connections with you.” That is, he sought a pretense; and he found one!
And now, what does all this amount to? Several persons, who professed high things, degenerated into pride and enthusiasm, and then talked like lunatics, about the time that they renounced connection with me for mildly reproving them. And is this any objection against the existence of that love which they professed, nay, and I verily believe, once enjoyed? though they were afterward “moved from their steadfastness.” Surely no more than a justified person’s running mad, is an objection against justification. Every doctrine must stand or fall by the Bible. If the perfection I teach agree with this, it will stand, in spite of all the enthusiasts in the world; if not, it cannot stand.
121. I now look back on a train of incidents that have occurred for many months last past, and adore a wise and gracious Providence, ordering all things well! When the Circular Letter was first dispersed throughout Great Britain and Ireland, I did not conceive the immense good which God was about to bring out of that evil. But no sooner did. Mr. F.’s first Letters appear, than the scene began to open. And the design of Providence opened more and more, when Mr. S.’s Narrative, and Mr. H.’s Letters, constrained him to write and publish his Second and Third Check to Antinomianism. It was then indisputably clear, that neither my brother nor I had born a sufficient testimony to the truth. For many years, from a well-meant, but ill-judged, tenderness, we had suffered the reprobation Preachers (vulgarly called Gospel Preachers) to spread their poison, almost without opposition. But at length they have awakened us out of sleep; Mr. H. has answered for all his brethren, roundly declaring, that “any agreement with election-doubters is a covenant with death.” It is well: We are now forewarned and fore-armed. We look for neither peace nor truce with any who do not openly and expressly renounce this diabolical sentiment. But since God is on our side, we will not fear what man can do unto us. We never before saw our way clear, to do any more than act on the defensive. But since the Circular Letter has sounded the alarm, has called forth all their hosts to war; and since Mr. H. has answered the call, drawing the sword, and throwing away the scabbard; what remains, but to own the hand of God, and make a virtue of necessity? I will no more desire any Arminian, so called, to remain only on the defensive. Rather chase the fiend, Reprobation, to his own hell, and every doctrine connected with it. Let none pity or spare one limb of either speculative or practical Antinomianism; or of any doctrine that naturally tends thereto, however veiled under the specious name of free grace; — only remembering, that however we are treated by men, who have a dispensation from the vulgar rules of justice and mercy, we are not to fight them at their own weapons, to return railing for railing. Those who plead the cause of the God of love, are to imitate Him they serve; and, however provoked, to use no other weapons than those of truth and love, of Scripture and reason.
122. Having now answered the queries you proposed, suffer me, Sir, to propose one to you; the same which a gentleman of your own opinion proposed to me some years since: “Sir, how is it that as soon as a man comes to the knowledge of the truth, it spoils his temper?” That it does so, I had observed over and over, as well as Mr. J. had. But how can we account for it? Has the truth (so Mr. J. termed what many love to term the doctrine of free grace) a natural tendency to spoil the temper? to inspire pride, haughtiness, superciliousness? to make a man “wiser in his own eyes, than seven men that can render a reason?” Does it naturally turn a man into a cynic, a bear, a Toplady? Does it at once set him free from all the restraints of good nature, decency, and good manners? Cannot a man hold distinguishing grace, as it is called, but he must distinguish himself for passion, sourness, bitterness? Must a man, as soon as he looks upon himself to be an absolute favorite of Heaven, look upon all that oppose him as Diabolonians, as predestinated dogs of hell? Truly, the melancholy instance now before us would almost induce us to think so. For who was of a more amiable temper than Mr. Hill, a few years ago? When I first conversed with him in London, I thought I had seldom seen a man of fortune who appeared to be of a more humble, modest, gentle, friendly disposition. And yet this same Mr. H., when he has once been grounded in “the knowledge of the truth,” is of a temper as totally different from this, as light is from darkness! He is now haughty, supercilious, disdaining his opponents as unworthy to be set with the dogs of his flock! He is violent, impetuous, bitter of spirit! in a word, the author of the Review! O Sir, what a commendation is this of your doctrine! Look at Mr. H., the Arminian! the loving, amiable, generous, friendly man. Look at Mr. H., the Calvinist! Is it the same person? this spiteful, morose, touchy man? Alas, what has “the knowledge of the truth” done? What a deplorable change has it made! Sir, I love you still; though I cannot esteem you as I did once. Let me entreat you, if not for the honor of God, yet for the honor of your cause, avoid, for the time to come, all anger, all spite, all sourness and bitterness; all contemptuous usage of your opponents, not inferior to you, unless in fortune. “O put on again bowels of mercies, kindness, gentleness, long-suffering; endeavoring to hold,” even with them that differ from you in opinion, the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace!” BRISTOL, September 9, 1772.