To Mr. Richard Tompson

June 28, 1755.

Some days since I received your favour of the 22d inst., which came exceeding seasonably; for I was just revising my Notes on the fifth chapter to the Romans: one of which I found, upon a closer inspection, seemed to assert such an imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity as might make way for the “horrible decree.” I therefore struck it out immediately; as I would willingly do whatsoever should appear to be any way inconsistent with that grand principle, “The Lord is loving to every man; and his mercy is over all his works.”

If you have observed any thing in any of the tracts I have published, which you think is not agreeable to Scripture and reason, you will oblige me by pointing it out, and by communicating to me any remarks you have occasionally made. I seek two things in this world, — truth and love. Whoever assists me in this search is a friend indeed, whether personally known or unknown to, sir.

Your humble servant.

CXCI. — TO THE SAME.

July 25, 1755.

Sir, — It would be a pleasure to me to write more largely than my time will now permit. Of all the disputants I have loiown, you are the most likely to convince me of any mistakes I may be in; because you have found out the great secret of speaking the truth in love. When it is thus proposed, it must surely win its way into every heart which is not purposely shut against it.

That you may clearly see wherein we agree, or wherein we differ, I have sent you the Minutes of some of our late conferences. Several concessions are made therein, both with regard to assurance and Christian perfection; some difficulties cleared, and a few arguments proposed, though very nakedly and briefly. When you have read these, you may come directly to any point of controversy which may still remain: and if you can show me that any farther concessions are needful, I shall make them with great pleasure.

On the subject of your last, I can but just observe, first, With regard to the assurance of faith, I apprehend that the whole Christian church in the first centuries enjoyed it. For though we have few points of doctrine explicitly taught in the small remains of the ante-Nicene fathers; yet I think none that carefully reads Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen, or any other of them, can doubt whether either the writer himself possessed it, or all whom he mentions as real Christians. And I really conceive, both from the “Harmonia Confessiomfm,” and whatever else I have occasionally read, that all the Reformed Churches in Europe did once believe, “Every true Christian has the divine evidence of his being in favour with God.”

So much for authority. The point of experience is touched upon in the conferences.

As to the nature of the thing, I think a divine conviction of pardon is directly implied in the evidence or conviction of things unseen. But if not, it is no absurdity to suppose that when God pardons a mourning, broken-hearted sinner, his mercy obliges him to another act, — to witness to his spirit that he has pardoned him.

I know that I am accepted; and yet that knowledge is sometimes shaken, though not destroyed, by doubt or fear. If that knowledge were destroyed, or wholly withdrawn, I could not then say I had Christian faith. To me it appears the same thing to say, “I know God has accepted me;” or, “I have a sure trust that God has accepted me.” I agree with you, that justifying faith cannot be a conviction that I am justified; and that a man who is not assured that his sins are forgiven, may yet have a kind or degree of faith which distinguishes him, not only from a devil, but also from a heathen, and on which I may admit him to the Lord’s supper. But still I believe the proper Christian faith, which purifies the heart, implies such a conviction.

CXCIL — TO THE SAME.

February 5, 1756.

Sir, — I was in Cornwall when your last was brought to the Foundry, and delivered to my brother. When I returned, it was mislaid, and could not be found; so that I did not receive it till some months after the date.

You judge right, with regard to the tract enclosed to you. It was sent to you by mistake, for another that bears the same name.

Christian perfection, we agree, may stand aside for the present. The point now to be considered is Christian faith. This, I apprehend, implies a divine evidence or conviction of our acceptance. You apprehend it does not.

In debating this (or indeed any) point with you, I lie under a great disadvantage. First, you know me; whereas I do not know you. Secondly, I am a very slow, you seem to be a very swift, writer. Thirdly, my time is so taken up, from day to day, and from week to week, that I can spare very little from my stated employments; so that I can neither write so largely, nor so accurately, as I might otherwise do. All, therefore, which you can expect from me is, not a close-wrought chain of connected arguments, but a short sketch of what I should deduce more at large, if I had more leisure.

I believe the ancient fathers are far from being silent on our question; though none, that I know, have treated it professedly. But I have not leisure to wade through that sea. Only to the argument from the baptism of heretics I reply. If any had averred, during that warm controversy, “I received a sense of pardon when I was baptized by such a heretic,” those on the other side would in nowise have believed him, so that the dispute would have remained as warm as ever. I know this from plain fact. Many have received a sense of pardon when I baptized them. But who will believe them when they assert it? Who will put any dispute on this issue?

I know, likewise, that Luther, Melancthon, and many other (if not all) of the reformers, frequently and strongly assert that every believer is conscious of his own acceptance with God; and that by a supernatural evidence, which if any choose to term immediate revelation he may. But neither have I leisure to re-examine this cloud of witnesses. Nor, indeed, as you justly observe, would the testimony of them all, together be sufficient to establish an unscriptural doctrine. Therefore, after all, we must be detennined by higher evidence. And herein we are clearly agreed: we both appeal “to the law and to the testimony.” May God enable us to understand it aright!

But, first, that you may not beat the air by disproving what I never intended to prove, I will show you as distinctly as I can, what my sentiments are upon the question; and the rather, because I plainly perceive you do not yet understand them. You seem to think I allow no degrees in grace; and that I make no distinction between the full assurance of faith and a low or common measure of it.

Several years ago, some clergymen, and other gentlemen, with whom we had a free conversation, proposed the following questions to my brother and me, to which we gave the answers subjoined: —

“June 25, 1744.

“Question”. What is faith?

“Answer. Faith, in general, is a divine, supernatural iTisyxoi* of things not seen; that is, of past, future, or spiritual. It is a spiritual sight of God, and the things of God. Justifying faith is a divine eXeyxoc that Christ loved me, and gave himself for me.

“Have all Christians this faith? And may not a man have it, and not know it?

“That all Christians have such a faith as implies a consciousness of God’s love, appears from Rom. viii, 15; Eph. iv, 32; 2 Cor. xiii, 5; Heb. viii, 10; 1 John iv, 10; V, 1, &c. And that no man can have it, and not know that he has, appears from the nature of the thing. For faith after repentance is ease after pain, rest after toil, light after darkness. It appears also from its immediate fruits; which are peace, joy, love, and power over sin.

“Q. Does any one believe any longer than he sees, loves, obeys God?

“A. We apprehend not; seeing God being the very essence of faith; love and obedience, the inseparable properties of it.”

‘’August 1745.

“Question. Is an assurance of God’s pardoning love absolutely necessary to our being in his favour? Or may there possibly be some exempt cases 1

“Answer. We dare not positively say there are not.

“Q. Is it necessary to final salvation in those (as Papists) who never heard it preached?

“A. We know not how far invincible ignorance may excuse. ‘Love hopeth all things.’

“Q. But what, if one who does hear it preached should die without it?

* Evidence or conviction, — Ed.

“A. We determine nothing. We leave his soul in the hands of Him that made it.

“Q. Does a man believe any longer than he sees a reconciled God?

“A. We conceive not. But we allow there may be very many degrees of seeing God; even as many as are between seeing the sun with the eyelids closed, and with the eyes open.”

The doctrine which I espouse till I receive farther light being thus explained and limited, I observe, —

First. A divine conviction of my being reconciled to God is, I think, directly implied (not in a divine evidence or conviction of something else, but) in a divine conviction that Christ loved me, and gave himself for me; and still more clearly in the Spirit’s bearing witness with my spirit that I am a child of God.

Secondly. I see no reason either to retract or soften the expression, “God’s mercy, in some cases, obliges him to act thus and thus.” Certainly, as his own nature obliges him (in a very clear and sound sense) to act according to truth and justice in all things; so, in some sense, his love obliged him to give his only Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish. So much for the phrase. My meaning is, the same compassion which moves God to pardon a mourning, broken-hearted sinner, moves him to comfort that mourner by witnessing to his spirit that his sins are pardoned.

Thirdly. You think “full assurance excludes all doubt.” I think so too. But there may be faith without y)^// assurance. And these lower degrees of faith do not exclude doubts, which frequently mingle therewith, more or less. But this you cannot allow. You say it cannot be shaken without being overthrown; and trust I shall be “convinced, upon reflection, that the distinction between shaken and destroyed is absolutely without a diflierence.” Hark! The wind rises: the house shakes; but it is not overthrown. It totters; but it is not destroyed.

You add, “Assurance is quite a distinct thing from ya«7^. Neither does it depend upon the same agent. Faith is an act of my mind; assurance, an act of the Holy Ghost.” I answer, first, The assurance in question is no other than the full assurance of faith: therefore it cannot be a distinct thing from faith; but only so high a degree of faith as excludes all doubt and fear. Secondly, This plerophory, or full assurance, is doubtless wrought in us by the Holy Ghost. But so is every degi-ee of true faith; yet the mind of man is the subject of both. I believe feebly: I believe without all doubt.

Your next remark is, “The Spirit’s witnessing that we are accepted cannot be the faith whereby we are accepted.” I allow it. A conviction that we are justified cannot be implied in justifying faith.

You subjoin, “^ sure trust that God hath accepted me is not the same thing with knowing that God has accepted me.” I think it is the same thing with some degree of that knowledge. But it matters not whether it be so or no. I will not contend for a term. I contend only for this, — that every true Christian believer has “a sure trust and confidence in God that, through the merits of Christ, he is reconciled to God;” and that, in consequence of this, he is able to say, “The life which I now live I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”

It is a very little thing to excuse a warm expression, (if you need any such excuse.) while I am convinced of your real good will to, Sir,

Yoiu: servant for Christ’s sake.