And I do not contend for the term sinless, though I do not object against it.

2. As to the manner. I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith; consequently in an instant.

But I believe a gradual work, both preceding and following that instant.

3. As to the time. I believe this instant generally is the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body. But I believe it may be ten, twenty, or forty years before.

I believe it is usually many years after justification; but that it may be within five years or five months after it, I know no conclusive argument to the contrary.

If it must be many years after justification, I would be glad to know how many. Pretium quotus arroget annus? [What length of time will sanction it?]

And how many days or months, or even years, can any one allow to be between perfection and death? How far from justification must it be; and how near to death?

LONDON, Jan. 27, 1767.

SOME THOUGHTS

ON

AN EXPRESSION OF ST. PAUL, IN THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS,

CHAPTER V, VERSE 23.

1. THE words as literally translated as the English tongue will bear, run thus: "May the whole of you, the spirit, and the soul, and the body, be preserved blameless."

What does St. Paul here mean by dividing man into three parts, "the spirit, and the soul, and the body?"

This creates what has been thought an insurmountable difficulty by those who argue thus :

"How is it possible to contradistinguish the soul both from the spirit and from the body? For it must be either material or immaterial, matter or not matter: there is no medium. But if it be matter, does it not coincide with the body? If it be not matter, does it not coincide with the spirit?"

But perhaps a way may be found of untieing this knot, of unraveling this difficulty, by simply declaring the (at least probable) meaning of these three terms.

May not the spirit mean (so it has been understood by the Christians in all ages) the highest principle in man, the immortal spirit made in the image of God, endued (as all spirits are, so far as we can conceive) with self-motion, understanding, will, and liberty?

Is not the body that portion of organized matter which every man receives in the womb, with which he is born into the world, and which be carries with him to the grave? At present it is connected with flesh

and blood. But these are not the body. They are only the temporary clothing of the body, which it wholly puts off in the grave.

The soul seems to be the immediate clothing of the spirit, the vehicle with which it is connected from its first existence, and which is never separated from it, either in life or in death. Probably it consists of ethereal or electric fire, the purest of all matter. It does not seem to

be affected by the death of the body, but envelopes the separate, as it does the embodied, spirit; neither will it undergo any essential change, when it is clothed upon with the immortal body at the resurrection.

May not the Apostle have an eye to this in those remarkable words: "We that are in this tabernacle" (this corruptible flesh and blood) "do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed," (divested of all covering, which belongs only to the Father of spirits,) "but clothed upon" with the glorious resurrection-body, covering both our soul and spirit? 2 Cor. v, 4. This will swallow up, totally destroy, To vnrov,―that which was mortal, namely, the flesh and blood, which alone was liable to death.

If we understand the words of the Apostle in this sense, all the difficulty vanishes away. We allow, there can be no medium between material and immaterial. But still there is room for a wide and essential difference between the soul and the body; the latter implying that original portion of matter which is now clothed with flesh and blood; the former, that vehicle of ethereal fire which immediately covers the immortal spirit.

CONGLETON, March 31, 1786.

ON CHRISTIAN PERFECTION.

TO THE REV. MR. DODD

FEBRUARY 5, 1756.

REV. SIR,-I am favoured with yours of January 26, for which I return you my sincere thanks. Your frank and open manner of writing is far from needing any apology, and I hope will never occasion your receiving such treatment from me, as I did from Mr. Law, who, after some very keen expressions, in answer to the second private letter I sent him, plainly told me he desired to hear "no more on that head." I do desire to hear, and am very willing to consider, whatever you have to advance on the head of Christian perfection.

When I began to make the Scriptures my chief study, (about sevenand-twenty years ago,) I began to see that Christians are called to love God with all their heart, and to serve him with all their strength; which is precisely what I apprehend to be meant by the Scriptural term perfection. After weighing this for some years, I openly declared my sentiments before the university, in the sermon on the Circumcision of the Heart, now printed in the second volume. [Vol. i, p. 147, of this editon.] About six years after, in consequence of an advice I received m Bishop Gibson, "Tell all the world what you mean by perfection" I published my coolest and latest thoughts in the sermon on that subject. You easily observe, I therein build on no authority, ancient or modern,

but the Scripture. If this supports any doctrine, it will stand; if not, the sooner it falls, the better. Neither the doctrine in question, nor any other, is any thing to me, unless it be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. If, therefore, you will please to point out to me any passages in that sermon which are either contrary to Scripture, or not supported by it, and to show that they are not, I shall be full as willing to oppose as ever I was to defend them. I search for truth, plain, Bible truth, without any regard to the praise or dispraise of men.

If you will assist me in this search, more especially by showing me where I have mistaken my way, it will be gratefully acknowledged by, Reverend Sir,

Your affectionate brother and servant,

JOHN WESLEY.

N. B. I had at this time no acquaintance with Dr. Dodd; nor did I ever see him till I saw him in prison.

AN ANSWER TO THE REV. MR. DODD.*

1. You and I may the more easily bear with each other, because we are both of us rapid writers, and therefore the more liable to mistake. I will thank you for showing me any mistake I am in; being not so tenacious of my opinions now, as I was twenty or thirty years ago. Indeed, I am not fond of any opinion as such. I read the Bible with what attention I can, and regulate all my opinions thereby, to the best of my understanding. But I am always willing to receive more light; particularly with regard to any less common opinions, because the explaining and defending of them takes up much time, which I can ill spare from other employments. Whoever, therefore, will give me more light with regard to Christian perfection, will do me a singular favour. opinion I have concerning it at present, I espouse merely because I think it is Scriptural. If therefore I am convinced it is not Scriptural, I shall willingly relinquish it.

The

2. I have no particular fondness for the term. It seldom occurs either in my preaching or writings. It is my opponents who thrust it upon me continually, and ask me what I mean by it. So did Bishop Gibson, till by his advice I publicly declared what I did not mean by it, and what I did. This I supposed might be best done in the form of a sermon, having a text prefixed, wherein that term occurred. But that text is there used only as an occasion or introduction to the subject. I do not build any doctrine thereupon, nor undertake critically to explain it.

3. What is the meaning of the term perfection? is another question; but that it is a Scriptural term is undeniable. Therefore, none ought to object to the use of the term, whatever they may do to this or that explication of it. I am very willing to consider whatever you have to object

* At what time this answer was written, it is perhaps impossible exactly to ascer tain. It appears to have been sent as a private letter to Mr. Dodd, before he had become a Doctor of Divinity; and not to have been published till the year 1782, when it was inserted in the Arminian Magazine.--Enıt.

to what is advanced under the first head of that sermon. But I still think that perfection is only another term for holiness, or the image of God in man. "God made man perfect," I think is just the same as, 'He made him holy," or "in his own image ;" and you are the first person I ever read of or spoke with, who made any doubt of it. Now this perfection does certainly admit of degrees. Therefore, I readily allow the propriety of that distinction,-perfection of kinds, and perfection of degrees. Nor do I remember one writer, ancient or modern, who excepts against it.

4. In the sermon of Salvation by Faith, I say, "He that is born of God sinneth not," (a proposition explained at large in another sermon, and every where either explicitly or virtually connected with," while he keepeth himself,")" by any sinful desire; any unholy desire he stifleth in the birth." (Assuredly he does, "while he keepeth himself.") "Nor doth he sin by infirmities; for his infirmities have no concurrence of his will; and without this they are not properly sins." Taking the words as they lie in connection thus, (and taken otherwise they are not my words but yours,) I must still aver, they speak both my own experience, and that of many hundred children of God whom I personally know. And all this, with abundantly more than this, is contained in that single expression, "the loving God with all our heart, and serving him with all our strength." Nor did I ever say or mean any more by perfection, than thus loving and serving God. But I dare not say less than this; for it might be attended with worse consequences than you seem to be aware of. If there be a mistake, it is far more dangerous on the one side than on the other. If I set the mark too high, I drive men into needless fears; if you set it too low, you drive them into hell fire.

66

5. We agree, that true "Christianity implies a destruction of the king dom of sin, and a renewal of the soul in righteousness; which even babes in Christ do in a measure experi nce, though not in so large a measure as young men and fathers." But here we divide. I believe even babes in Christ," while they keep themselves, do not commit sin." By sin, I mean, outward sin; and the word commit, I take in its plain, literal meaning. And this I think is fully proved by all the texts cited by me from the sixth chapter to the Romans. Nor do I conceive there is any material difference between committing sin, and continuing therein. I tell my neighbour here, William, you are a child of the devil, for you commit sin; you was drunk yesterday." "No, sir," says the man, "I do not live or continue in sin;" (which Mr. Dodd says is the true meaning of the text;) "I am not drunk continually, but only now and then, once in a fortnight, or once in a month." Now, sir, how shall I deal with this man? Shall I tell him he is in the way to heaven or hell? I think he is in the high road to destruction; and that if I tell him otherwise his blood will be upon my head. And all that you say of living, continuing in, serving sin, as different from committing it, and of its not reigning, not having dominion, over him who still frequently commits it, is making so many loop holes whereby any impenitent sinner may escape from all the terrors of the Lord. I dare not therefore give up the plain, literal meaning either of St. Paul's or St. Peter's words.

6. As to those of St. John, cited by me, I do not think you have proved they are not to be taken literally. In every single act of obedience, as well as in a continued course of it, os dixaruvny: [he doeth righteousness:] and in either an act or a course of sin, Toes auaprav. [He doeth sin.] Therefore, that I may give no countenance to any kind or degree of sin, I still interpret these words by those in the fifth chapter, and believe, "he that is born of God" (while he keepeth himself) "sinneth not;" doth not commit outward sin.

7. But it is absolutely necessary," as you observe, "to add sometimes explanatory words to those of the sacred penmen." It is so; to add words explanatory of their sense, but not subversive of it. The words added to this text, "Ye know all things," are such; and you yourself allow them so to be. But I do not allow the words wilfully and habitually to be such. These do not explain, but overthrow, the text. That the first Fathers thus explained it, I deny; as also that I ever spoke lightly of them.

8. You proceed: "You allow in another sermon, in evident contradiction to yourself, that the true children of God could, and did, commit sin." This is no contradiction to any thing I ever advanced. I every where allow that a child of God can and will commit sin, if he does not

keep himself. "But this," you say, "is nothing to the present argument." Yes, it is the whole thing. If they keep themselves, they do not; otherwise, they can and do commit sin. I say nothing contrary to this in either sermon. But "hence," you say, "we conclude that he who is born of God, may possibly commit sin :" an idle conclusion as ever was formed; for who ever denied it? I flatly affirm it in both the sermons, and in the very paragraph now before us. The only conclusion which I deny is, that "all Christians do and will commit sin, as long as they live." Now this you yourself (though you seem to start at it) maintain from the beginning of your Letter to the end; namely, that all Christians do sin, and c not but sin, more or less, to their lives' end. Therefore I do not " artfully put this conclusion ;" but it is your own conclusion, from your own premises. Indeed were I artfully to put in any thing in expounding the word of God, I must be an arrant knave. But I do not; my conscience bears me witness, that I speak the very truth, so far as I know it, in simplicity and godly sincerity.

9. I think that all this time you are directly pleading for looseness of manners, and that every thing you advance naturally tends thereto. This is my grand objection to that doctrine of the necessity of sinning: not only that it is false, but that it is directly subversive of all holiness. The doctrine of the Gnostics was, not that a child of God does not commit sin, that is, act the things which are forbidden in Scripture, but that they are not sin in him, that he is a child of God still; so they contend, not for sinless, but sinful, perfection; just as different from what I contend for as heaven is from hell. What the Donatists were, I do not know; but I suspect they were the real Christians of that age; and were therefore served by St. Augustine and his warm adherents, as the Methodists a e now by their zealous adversaries. It is extremely easy to blacken; and could I give myself leave, I could paint the consequences of your doctrine, in at least as dark and odious colours as you could paint mine.