« PreviousContinue »
the Scriptures, and hereby try every doctrine whether it be of God. And what is agreeable to Scripture they embrace ; what is contrary to it they reject.
19. You charge us, fourthly, with injuring the clergy in various ways. 1st. “ They are very industrious to dissolve or break off that spiritual intercourse, which the relation wherein we stand, requires should be preserved betwixt us and our people.” But can that spiritual intercourse be either preserved or broke off, which never existed? What spiritual intercourse exists between you, the rector of St. Michael, and the people of your parish ? I suppose you preach to them once a week, and now and then read prayers. Perhaps you visit one in ten of the sick. And is this all the spiritual intercourse which you have with those, over whom the Holy Ghost hath made you an overseer ? In how poor a sense then do you watch over the souls, for whom you are to give an account to God! Sir, I wish to God there were a truly spiritual intercourse between you and all your people! I wish you ‘knew all your flock by name, not excepting the men-servants and women-servants! Then you might cherish each as a nurse her own children, and train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.' Then might you ‘warn every one and exhort every onę, till you should • present every one perfect in Christ Jesus.'
“ But they say, our sermons contradict the Articles, Homilies, and Liturgy of our own Church; yea, that we contradict ourselves, saying one thing in the desk, and another in the pulpit.” And is there not cause to say so? I myself have heard several sermons preached in churches, which flatly contradicted both the Articles, Homilies, and Liturgy, particularly on the head of justification. I have likewise heard more than one or two persons, who " said one thing in the desk, and another in the pulpit.” In the desk they prayed God to “cleanse the thoughts of their hearts by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit.' In the pulpit, they said, “ There was no such thing as inspiration, since the time of the apostles.”
“ But this is not all. You poison the people by the most peevish and spiteful invectives against the clergy, the most rude and rancor. ous revilings, and the most invidious calumnies,” (p. 51.) No more than 1 poison them with arsenic. I make no peevish or spiteful invectives against any man. Rude and rancorous revilings, (such as your present tract abounds with,) are also far from me. I dare not "return railing for railing,' because (whether you know it or not) I fear God. Invidious calumnies likewise I never dealt in: all such weapons I leave to you.
20. One charge remains, which you repeat over and over, and lay a peculiar stress upon : (as to what you talk about perverting Scripture, 1 pass it by, as mere, unmeaning, common-place declamation.) It is the poor, old, worn-out tale of “Getting money by preaching." This you only intimate at first. “Some of their followers had an inward call, to sell all that they had, and lay it at their feet,” (p. 22.) Pray, Sir, favour us with the name of one, and we will excuse you
as to all the rest. In the next page you grow bolder, and roundly affirm, “With all their heavenly-mindedness, they could not help casting a sheep's-eye at the unrighteous mammon. Nor did they pay their court to it with less cunning and success than Montanus. Under the specious appearance of gifts and offerings, they raised contributions from every quarter. Besides the weekly pensions squeezed out of the poorer and lower part of their community, they were favoured with very large oblations from persons of better figure and fortune: and especially from many believing wives, who had learned to practise pious frauds on their unbelieving husbands."
I am almost ashamed, (having done it twenty times before,) to answer this stale calumny again. But the bold, frontless manner wherein you advance it, obliges me so to do. Know then, Sir, that you have no authority either from scripture or reason, to judge of other men by yourself. If your own conscience convicts you of loving money, of “casting a sheep's-eye at the unrighteous mammon," humble yourself before God, if haply the thoughts and desires of your heart may be forgiven you. But, blessed be God, my conscience is clear. My heart does not condemn me in this matter. I know, and God knoweth, that I have no desire to load myself with thick clay : that I love money no more than I love the mire in the streets : that I seek it not. And I have it not: any more than suffices for food and raiment, for the plain conveniences of life. I pay no court to it at all, or to those that have it, either with cunning or without. For myself, for my own use, I raise no contributions either great or small. The weekly contributions of our community, (which are freely given, not squeezed out of any,) as well as the gifts and offerings of the Lord's table, never come into my hands. I have no concern with them, not so much as the beholding them with my eyes. They are received every week by the stewards of the society, men of well known character in the world, and by them constantly distributed within the week, to those whom they know to be in real necessity. As to the very large oblations wherewith I am favoured by persons of better figure and fortune," I know nothing of them: be so kind as to refresh my memory by mentioning a few of their names. I have the happiness of knowing some of great figure and fortune : some right honourable persons.
But if I were to say, that all of them together had given me seven pounds in seven years, I should say more than I could make good. And yet I doubt not, but they would freely give me any thing I wanted; but, by the blessing of God, I want nothing that they can give. I want only more of the Spirit of love and power, and of an healthful mind. As to those “ many believing wives who practise pious frauds on their umbelieving husbands," I know them not, no, not one of that kind : therefore I doubt the fact. If you know any such, be pleased to give us their names and places of abode. . Otherwise you must bear the blame of being the lover, if not the maker of a lie.
Perhaps you will say, "Why, a great man said the same thing but a few years ago.” What if he did? Let the frog swell as long as
he can, he will not equal the ox. He might say many things, all circumstances considered, which will not come well from you; as you have neither his wit, nor sense, nor learning, nor age, nor dignity.
Tibi parvula res est :
Metiri se quemq; suo modulo ac pede verrım est. If you fall upon people that meddle not with you, without either fear or wit, you may possibly find they have a little more to say for themselves than you were aware of.— I follow peace with all men: but if a man set upon me, without either rhyme or reason, I think it my duty to defend myself, so far as truth and justice permit
. Yet still I am, (if a poor enthusiast may not be so bold as to style himself your brother,)
REVEREND DR. HORNE,
OCCASIONED BY HIS LATE SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, ABOUT 1762.
WHEN you spoke of “heresies making their periodical revolu tions,” of “ Antinomianism rampant among us,”and immediately after, of “the new lights at the Tabernacle and Foundry,” must not your hearers naturally think, that Mr. Whitefield and I were reviving those heresies ? But do you know the persons of whom you speak? Have you ever conversed with them ? Have you read their writings ? If not, is it kind, is it just, to pass so severe a censure upon them? Had you only taken the trouble of reading one tract, the Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, you would have seen, that a great part of what
you affirm, is what I never denied. To put this beyond dispute, I beg leave to transcribe some passages from that treatise ; which will show not only what I teach now, but what I have taught for many years. I will afterward simply and plainly declare, wherein I as yet differ from you. And the rather, that if I err therein, you may, by God's assistance, convince me of it.
I. 1. • Justification sometimes means, our acquittal at the last day.* 2. That faith alone is the proximate condition of justification.'
* Farther Appeal, Part I.
II. 1. I have here shown at large, what is the doctrine I teach with regard to justification, and have taught, ever since I was convinced of it myself, by carefully reading the New Testament and the Homilies. In many points, I apprehend it agrees with yours; in some it does not: these I come now to consider. May God enable me to do it, in love and meekness of wisdom !
You say, p. 7, “ Happy times, when faith and a good life were synonymous terms."
I conceive they never were. Is not faith the root, a good life the tree springing therefrom?
“That good works are a necessary condition of our justification may be proved, 1. From express testimonies of Scripture. So Isaiah i. 16, 'cease from evil, learn to do well.' Then your sins that were as scarlet, shall be white as snow.' Here ceasing from evil, and learning to do well,' are the conditions of pardon.” (p. 9.) I answer, without them there is no pardon ; yet the immediate condition of it is faith. He that believeth, and he alone, is justified before God. “So Ezekiel xxxii. 14. If the sinner turn from his evil ways,' and 'walk in the statutes of life,' then “all his sins shall not be once mentioned to him.'» Most sure ; that is, if he believe ; else, whatever his outward walking be, he cannot be justified.
The next scripture you cite, Mat. xi. 28, (Sermon, p. 10,) proves no more than this, that none find rest to their souls, unless they first come to Christ (namely by faith) and then obey him.
But “he says, 'ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.'” He does so: but how does it appear, that this relates to justification at all ?
( St. Peter also declares, in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him, Acts x. 34.” He is : but none can either fear God or work righteousness, till he believes according to the dispensation he is under. “And St. John, He that doth righteousness is righteous.'” I do not see, that this proves
“ And again, If we walk in the light as God is in the light, then have we communion with him, and the blood of Jesus Christ bis Son cleanseth us from all sin,' 1 John i. 7." This would prove something, if it could be proved, that .cleansing us from all sin,' meant only justification.
“ The Scriptures insist upon the necessity of repentance in particular for that purpose. But repentance comprehends compunction, humiliation, hatred of sin, confession of it, prayer for mercy, ceasing from evil, a firm purpose to do well, restitution of ill-got goods, forgiveness of all who have done us wrong, and works of beneficence,” (p. 11, 12.) I believe it does comprehend all these, either as parts or as fruits of it: and it comprehends “the fear,” but not “the love of God:” that flows from a higher principle. And he who loves God is not barely in the right way to justification : he is actually justified. The rest of the paragraph asserts just the same thing which was asserted in those words, previous to justifying
faith must be repentance, and, if opportunity permit, "fruits meet for repentance.' But still I must observe, that neither the one nor the other is necessary, either in the same sense, or in the same degree with faith.' No Scripture testimony can be produced, which any way contradicts this.
2. “ That works are a necessary condition of our justification, may be proved, secondly, from Scripture examples : particularly those recited in the eleventh chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews. These all, through faith, wrought righteousness; without working righteousness, they had never obtained the promises,'” (p. 13.) I say the same thing: none are finally saved, but those whose faith worketh by love.'
“ Even in the thief upon the cross, faith was attended by repentance, piety, and charity.” It was; repentance went before his faith; piety and charity accompanied it. Therefore he was not justified by faith alone. Our church, adopting the words of St. Chrysostom, expressly affirms, in the passage above cited, he was justified by faith alone. And her authority ought to weigh more than even that of Bishop Bull, or of any single man whatever. Authority, be pleased to observe, I plead against authority; reason against reason. It is no objetion, that the faith whereby he was justified, immediately produced good works. 3. How we are justified by faith alone and yet by such a faith as is not alone : it may be proper to explain. And this also I choose to do, not in my own words, but in those of our church.
• Faith does not shut out repentance, hope, love, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justily not altogether.'* Neither doth faith shut out good works, necessarily to be done afterwards, of duty towards God. That we are justified only by this faith in Christ, speak all the ancient authors : especially Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, Hilary, Basil, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine.
4. You go on. Thirdly, if we consider the nature of faith, it will appear impossible that a man should be justified by that alone Faith is either an assent to the gospel truths, or a reliance on the gospel promises. I know of no other notion of faith,” (p. 15.) I do: an enormos of things not seen: which is far more than a bare assent, and yet toto genere different from a reliance. Therefore, if you prore, that neither an assent nor a reliance justifies, nor both of them together, still you do not prove, that we are not justified by faith, even by faith alone.. But how do you prove, that we cannot be justified by
ith as a reliance on the promises ? Thus, “Such a reliance must be founded on a consciousness of having performed the conditions. And a reliance so founded is the result of works wrought through faith."
Homily on the Salvation of Man.