But to the proof. “Mr. _Wesley_, you say, at one time declares for a disinterested love of God: at another, declares, There is no one caution in all the bible, against the selfish love of God.”
Nay, Sir, I will tell you what is stranger still. Mr. _Wesley_ holds _at one time_, both sides of this contradiction. I now declare, both that “all true love is disinterested, _seeketh not her own_: and that there is no one caution in all the bible, against the selfish love of God.”
What have I the _art_ to slip out of your hands again? “Pardon me (as your old friend says) for being jocular.”
20. You add, (_altius insurgens_) “but it is a considerable offence to charge another wrongfully and contradict himself about the doctrine of assurance.” To prove this upon me, you bring my own words. “The ¹assurance we preach, is of quite another kind from that Mr. _Bedford_ writes against. We speak of an assurance of our present pardon; not, as he does, of our final perseverance.”
¹ 3 Journal, page 9.
“Mr. _Wesley_ might have considered (you say) that when they talk of _assurance of pardon and salvation_, the world will extend the meaning of the words, to our eternal state.” I do consider it, Sir. And therefore I never use that phrase either in preaching or writing. _Assurance of pardon and salvation_ is an expression that never comes out of my lips. And if Mr. _Whitfield_ does use it, yet he does not _preach_ such an _assurance_, as the privilege of all Christians.
“But Mr. _Wesley_ himself says, that though a full _assurance of faith_ doth not necessarily imply _a full assurance of our future perseverance_,” yet “some have both the one and the other.” And now what becomes of his charge against Mr. _Bedford_? And is it not mere evasion to say afterwards, “This is not ♦_properly_ an assurance of what is _future_?”
♦ “porperly” replaced with “properly”
Sir, this _argument presses_ me very _hard_! May I not be allowed a little _evasion_ now? Come, for once I will try to do without it, and to answer flat and plain.
And I answer, 1. That _faith_ is one thing; the _full assurance of faith_ another: 2. That even the _full assurance of faith_, does not imply the _full assurance of perseverance_. This bears another name; being stiled by St. _Paul_, _the full assurance of hope_. 3. Some Christians have only the first of these. They have faith: but mixt with doubts and fears. Some have also _the full assurance of faith_; a full conviction of _present pardon_: and yet not the _full assurance of hope_; not a full conviction of their _future perseverance_. 4. The faith which we preach, as necessary to all Christians, is the first of these, and no other. Therefore, 5. It is no evasion at all to say, “This (the faith which we preach as necessary to all Christians) is not _properly_ an assurance of what is future.” And consequently, my charge against Mr. _Bedford_ stands good, “That his sermon on _assurance_, is an _♦ignoratio elenchi_ (an ignorance of the point in question) from beginning to end.” Therefore neither do I “charge another _wrongfully_, nor _contradict myself_, about the doctrine of assurances.”
♦ “ingoratio” replaced with “ignoratio” per Errata
21. To prove my _art_, _cunning_ and _evasion_, you instance next in the case of _impulses, and impressions_. You begin “With what pertinacious confidence, have _impulses_, _impressions_, _feelings_, &c. been advanced into _certain rules_ of conduct? Their followers have been taught to depend upon them, as sure guides and _infallible proofs_.”
To support this weighty charge, you bring one single scrap, about a line and a quarter from one of my _journals_. The words are these. “By the most _infallible of proofs, inward feeling_, I am convinced.” Convinced of what? It immediately follows, “Of unbelief, having no such faith as will prevent my heart from being troubled.”
I here assert, that _inward feeling_ or consciousness, is the _most infallible of proofs_, of unbelief, of the want of such a faith, as will prevent the heart’s being troubled. But do I here “advance impressions, impulses, feelings, &c. into _certain rules_ of conduct?” Or any where else? You may just as well say, I advance them into certain proofs of transubstantiation.
Neither in writing, nor in private conversation, have I ever “taught any of my followers, to depend upon them as sure guides or infallible proofs” of any thing.
Nay, you yourself own, I have taught quite the reverse: and that at my very first setting out. Then as well as ever since, I have told the societies, “They were not to judge by their own _inward feelings_. I warned them, all these were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature. They might be from God, or they might not, and were therefore to be tried by a farther rule, to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony”.¹
¹ 3 Journal, pages 60, 61.