Sermon

# found: 0

Toggle:

Notes:

Sermon 51: The Good Steward

https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon051

02:281 An Introductory Comment

In its substance and theme this sermon follows as a sequel to ‘The Use of Money’, but its form is different and so also is its style. It is one of the very few of Wesley’s sermons to the nobility, the fruit of a brief period of closer cooperation between Wesley and the Countess of Huntingdon and her circle of high-born friends in the closing years of the 1760s—an alliance shortly to be disrupted by the controversies stirred up by that provocative Minute of 1770. ‘The Use of Money’ is clearly to ‘plain people’ (ad populum). The Good Steward is an ‘inaugural sermon’ marking Wesley’s somewhat unlikely appointment as ‘Chaplain to the Countess Dowager of Buchan’. The Countess had been born Lady Agnes Stewart of Goodtrees (near Edinburgh), and now was the widow of David Erskine, tenth Earl of Buchan. After the latter’s triumphant death, December 1, 1767, his son and heir (also a convert to Methodism) ‘appointed Mr. Venn, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Berridge as his (personal chaplains]’; see the vivid account in Seymour, Countess of Huntingdon, II.14-19. His mother (the Dowager), ‘a woman of strong natural understanding and of a highly cultivated mind’, seems to have been persuaded by Lady Huntingdon to appoint Mr. Wesley as her own chaplain (ibid., I.427; see also WHS, X.91-92). This was promptly acknowledged in a mildly stilted letter of Wesley’s to Lady Huntingdon on January 4, 1768: ‘I am obliged to your Ladyship, and to Lady Buchan, for such a mark of your regard as I did not at all expect. I purpose to return her Ladyship thanks by this post.’ On the following May 15, in Edinburgh, he preached to a ‘sufficiently crowded house, even with the rich and honourable’, and one may suppose that his topic for that occasion had been The Good Steward (a concio ad aulam, dated for publication as of May 14). He had already spoken on this same theme in No. 28, ‘Sermon on the Mount, VIII’, §§26-27. He and the well-read in his audience would have recognized the echoes here from William Law’s classic description of the stewardship of life itself in his Serious Call. The special obligations of Christian stewardship amongst ‘the rich and honourable’ had already been analyzed in quite genteel fashion by John Chappelow, The Right Way to be Rich. What 02:282Wesley adds is a vivid description of ‘The Last Judgment’, echoing his earlier sermon, No. 15, The Great Assize.

Wesley’s style here is noticeably more formal than in the generality of his sermons, his learning slightly more in evidence. Even more notable, however, are his brief excursions into speculation (e.g., the controverted question about ‘the sleep of death’, etc.). The basic message is, of course, familiar from Wesley’s earliest interest in holy living: all of life is from God, and our use of all its gifts and bounties are to be received gratefully and administered faithfully as ‘‘good stewards’, and always ad interim.

What Wesley’s chaplaincy to the Dowager Countess amounted to is not altogether dear. He adverts to it in the title of his open Letter to the Rev. Dr. Rutherforth (March 24, 1768) and, again, on the titlepage of his memorial sermon on the death of George Whitefield, November 18, 1770 (see No. 53).

Does his subsequent silence suggest that the appointment lapsed after the ‘Calvinist-Arminian’ disputes of the 1770s heated up? We do not know. What is certain is that, while it lasted, the patronage of the Erskine family would have aided Wesley’s work in Scotland. The sermon itself was first published in Newcastle in 1768 and then inserted into Vol. IV of Wesley’s Works (1771). For the publishing history of its nine extant editions during Wesley’s lifetime, and a list of its variant readings, see Appendix, Vol. 4, and Bibliog, No. 311.

The Good Steward

Luke 16:2

Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou canst be no longer steward.

1. The relation which man bears to God, the creature to his Creator, is exhibited to us in the oracles of God under various representations. Considered as a sinner, a fallen creature, he is there represented as a debtor to his Creator. He is also frequently represented as a servant, which indeed is essential to him as a creature, insomuch that this appellation is given to the Son of 02:283God when in his state of humiliation: he ‘took upon him the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men’.

Cf. Phil. 2:7.

2. But no character more exactly agrees with the present state of man than that of a steward.

Cf. Wesley’s Notes (Luke 16:1); and also Poole, Annotations: ‘We are but stewards of the good things God lends us, and must give an account to our Master of them.’ Henry, Exposition, on the same passage, quotes from Rabbi Kimchi: ‘This world is a house; heaven the roof; the stars the lights; the earth…a table spread…; man is the steward…; if he behave himself well, he shall find favour in the eyes of the Lord; if not, he shall be turned out of his stewardship.’

Our blessed Lord frequently represents him as such; and there is a peculiar propriety in the representation. It is only in one particular respect, namely, as he is a sinner, that he is styled a ‘debtor’; and when he is styled a ‘servant’ the appellation is general and indeterminate. But a ‘steward’ is a servant of a particular kind; such a one as man is in all respects. This appellation is exactly expressive of his situation in the present world, specifying what kind of servant he is to God, and what kind of service his divine master expects from him.

It may be of use, then, to consider this point throughly, and to make our full improvement of it. In order to this let us, first, inquire in what respects we are now God’s ‘stewards’. Let us, secondly, observe that when he requires our souls of us we ‘can be no longer stewards’. It will then only remain, as we may in the third place observe, to ‘give an account of our stewardship’.

I. 1. And, first, we are to inquire in what respects we are now God’s stewards. We are now indebted to him for all we have; but although a debtor is obliged to return what he has received, yet until the time of payment comes he is at liberty to use it as he pleases. It is not so with a steward: he is not at liberty to use what is lodged in his hands as he pleases, but as his master pleases. He has no right to dispose of anything which is in his hands but according to the will of his lord. For he is not the proprietor of any of these things, but barely entrusted with them by another: and entrusted on this express condition, that he shall dispose of all as his master orders. Now this is exactly the case of every man with relation to God. We are not at liberty to use what he has lodged in our hands as we please, but as he pleases, who alone is the Possessor of heaven and earth,

Gen. 14:19, 22.

and the Lord of every creature. We have no right to dispose of anything we have but according to 02:284his will, seeing we are not proprietors of any of these things. They are all, as our Lord speaks, ἀλλότρια

Luke 16:12.

, ‘belonging to another person’; nor is anything properly ‘our own’ in the land of our pilgrimage.

See Exod. 6:4.

We shall not receive τὰ ἴδια,

Cf. Acts 4:32; but see also Bauer in Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon.

‘our own things’, till we come to our own country. Eternal things only are our own: with all these temporal things we are barely entrusted by another—the Disposer and Lord of all. And he entrusts us with them on this express condition, that we use them only as our Master’s goods, and according to the particular directions which he has given us in his Word.

2. On this condition he hath entrusted us with our souls, our bodies, our goods, and whatever other talents we have received: but in order to impress this weighty truth on our hearts it will be needful to come to particulars.

And first, God has entrusted us with our soul, an immortal spirit made in the image of God,

Gen. 1:27; 9:6, etc.

together with all the powers and faculties thereof—understanding, imagination, memory; will, and a train of affections either included in it or closely dependent upon it; love and hatred, joy and sorrow, respecting present good and evil; desire and aversion, hope and fear, respecting that which is to come. All these St. Paul seems to include in two words when he says, ‘The peace of God shall keep your hearts and minds.’

Phil. 4:7.

Perhaps, indeed the latter word, νσήματα, might rather be rendered ‘thoughts’,

Cf. Bengel, Gnomon, loc. cit.: ‘The heart is the seat of one’s thoughts.’ But see Bauer in Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon on νόημα.

provided we take that word in its most extensive sense, for every perception of the mind, whether active or passive.

3. Now of all these it is certain we are only stewards. God has entrusted us with these powers and faculties, not that we may employ them according to our own will, but according to the express orders which he has given us; although it is true that in doing his will we most effectually secure our own happiness, seeing it is herein only that we can be happy either in time or in eternity. Thus we are to use our understanding, our imagination, our memory, wholly to the glory of him that gave them. Thus our will is to be wholly given up to him, and all our affections to be 02:285regulated as he directs. We are to love and hate, to rejoice and grieve, to desire and shun, to hope and fear, according to the rule which he prescribes whose we are, and whom we are to serve in all things.

See Acts 27:23.

Even our thoughts are not our own in this sense: they are not at our own disposal, but for every deliberate motion of our mind we are accountable to our great Master.

4. God has, secondly, entrusted us with our bodies (those exquisitely wrought machines, so ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’),

Ps. 139:14. For Wesley’s frequent descriptions of the body as a machine, cf. Nos. 56, ‘God’s Approbation of His Works’, I.7; 57, ‘On the Fall of Man’, II.1, 5; 69, ‘The Imperfection of Human Knowledge’, I.13; 71, ‘Of Good Angels’, I.7; 72, ‘Of Evil Angels’, II.8; 82, ‘On Temptation’, I.2; 116, ‘What is Man? Ps. 8:4’, §§1-4; 141, ‘The Image of God’, II.1. See also his Thoughts Upon Necessity, III.9; and his Survey, I.27-29, 164; II.275-76; IV.89; V.254. For another comment on his body/soul dualism, see No. 41, Wandering Thoughts, III.5 and n.

with all the powers and members thereof. He has entrusted us with the organs of sense, of sight, hearing, and the rest: but none of these are given us as our own, to be employed according to our own will. None of these are lent us in such a sense as to leave us at liberty to use them as we please for a season. No; we have received them on these very terms, that as long as they abide with us we should employ them all in that very manner, and no other, which he appoints.

5. It is on the same terms that he has imparted to us that most excellent talent of speech. ‘Thou hast given me a tongue’, says the ancient writer, ‘that I may praise thee therewith.’

Augustine, Confessions, V.i: ‘Accipe sacrificium confessionum mearum de manu linguae meae, quam formasti et excitasti, ut confiteatur nomini tuo.’

For this purpose was it given to all the children of men, to be employed in glorifying God. Nothing therefore is more ungrateful, or more absurd, than to think or say, ‘our tongues are our own.’ That cannot be, unless we have created ourselves, and so are independent on the Most High. Nay, but ‘it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves.’

Cf. Ps. 100:3.

The manifest consequence is that he is still Lord over us, in this as in all other respects. It follows that there is not a word of our tongue for which we are not accountable to him.

6. To him we are equally accountable for the use of our hands and feet, and all the members of our body. These are so many talents which are committed to our trust,

See 1 Tim. 1:11.

until the time appointed by the Father.

See Gal. 4:2.

Until then we have the use of all these; 02:286but as stewards, not as proprietors: to the end we should ‘render them, not as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, but as instruments of righteousness unto God’.

Cf. Rom. 6:13.

7. God has entrusted us, thirdly, with a portion of worldly goods, with food to eat, raiment to put on, and a place where to lay our head, with not only the necessaries but the conveniences of life. Above all, he has committed to our charge that precious talent which contains all the rest, money. Indeed, it is unspeakably precious if we are ‘wise and faithful stewards’

Cf. Luke 12:42.

of it; if we employ every part of it for such purposes as our blessed Lord has commanded us to do.

8. God has entrusted us, fourthly, with several talents which do not properly come under any of these heads: such is bodily strength; such are health, a pleasing person, an agreeable address; such are learning and knowledge in their various degrees, with all the other advantages of education. Such is the influence which we have over others, whether by their love and esteem of us, or by power—power to do them good or hurt, to help or hinder them in the circumstances of life. Add to these that invaluable talent of time, with which God entrusts us from moment to moment. Add, lastly, that on which all the rest depend, and without which they would all be curses, not blessings: namely, the grace of God, the power of his Holy Spirit, which alone worketh in us

See Eph. 3:20.

all that is acceptable in his sight.

See Ps. 19:14; 1 Tim. 2:3.

II. 1. In so many respects are the children of men stewards of the Lord, ‘the possessor of heaven and earth’.

Gen. 14:19, 22.

So large a portion of his goods of various kinds hath he committed to their charge. But it is not for ever, nor indeed for any considerable time. We have this trust reposed in us only during the short, uncertain space that we sojourn here below; only so long as we remain on earth, as this fleeting breath is in our nostrils. The hour is swiftly approaching, it is just at hand, when we ‘can be no longer stewards’.

Cf. Luke 16:2.

The moment the body ‘returns to the dust as it was, and the spirit to God that gave it’,

Cf. Eccles. 12:7.

we bear that character no more; the time of our stewardship is at an end. Part of those goods 02:287wherewith we were before entrusted are now come to an end; at least they are so with regard to us; nor are we longer entrusted with them—and that part which remains can no longer be employed or improved as it was before.

2. Part of what we were entrusted with before is at an end, at least with regard to us. What have we to do after this life with food, and raiment, and houses, and earthly possessions? The food of the dead is the dust of the earth: they are clothed only with worms and rottenness. They dwell in ‘the house prepared for all flesh’:

Cf. Job 30:23, ‘the house appointed for all living’.

their lands know them no more. All their worldly goods are delivered into other hands, and they have ‘no more portion under the sun’.

Cf. Eccles. 9:6.

3. The case is the same with regard to the body. The moment the spirit returns to God we are no longer stewards of this machine, which is then sown in corruption and dishonour.

See 1 Cor. 15:42-43. Cf. No. 129, ‘Heavenly Treasure in Earthen Vessels’, I.1.

All the parts and members of which it was composed lie mouldering in the clay. The hands have no longer power to move; the feet have forgot their office; the flesh, the sinews, the bones are all hasting to be dissolved into common dust.

4. Here end also the talents of a mixed nature: our strength, our health, our beauty; our eloquence and address; our faculty of pleasing, of persuading or convincing others. Here end likewise all the honours we once enjoyed, all the power which was lodged in our hands, all the influence which we once had over others, either by the love or the esteem which they bore us. ‘Our love, our hatred, our desire is perished:’

Cf. Eccles. 9:6.

none regard how we were once affected toward them. They look upon the dead as neither able to help nor hurt them; so that ‘a living dog is better than a dead lion.’

Eccles. 9:4.

5. Perhaps a doubt may remain concerning some of the other talents wherewith we are now entrusted, whether they will cease to exist when the body returns to dust, or only cease to be improvable. Indeed there is no doubt but the kind of speech which we now use, by means of these bodily organs, will then be entirely at an end, when those organs are destroyed. It is certain the tongue will no more occasion any vibrations in the air, neither will 02:288the ear convey these tremulous motions to the common sensory.

Cf. Chambers’s Cyclopaedia, ‘Sensory’: ‘Sensorium commune, the seat of the common sense; or that part or place where the sensible soul is supposed more immediately to preside [over the body/soul interconnections]…. Descartes will have it in the conarion or pineal gland.’ But see also John Norris, Reason and Religion (1689), II.ii.188. The classical source of the notion is in Aristotle, De Memoria, 450a, which speaks of ‘the primary faculty of perception’. Cf. also No. 124, ‘Human Life a Dream’, §7.

Even the sonus exilis,

Cf. Sugden’s note, II.468-69; but none of his citations there comes close to the phrase, sonus exilis. Could it be Wesley’s own Latin translation of Homer’s ὤχετο τετριγυῖα (Iliad, xxiii.99-101)? Vox exilis is cited in Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, as from Quintilian (XI.iii.15), but not sonus exilis; and Quintilian was not a ‘poet’.

the low, shrill voice which the poet supposes to belong to a separate spirit, we cannot allow to have a real being; it is a mere flight of imagination. Indeed it cannot be questioned but separate spirits have some way to communicate their sentiments to each other; but what inhabitant of flesh and blood can explain that way? What we term ‘speech’ they cannot have. So that we can no longer be stewards of this talent when we are numbered with the dead.

6. It may likewise admit of a doubt whether our senses will exist when the organs of sense are destroyed. Is it not probable that those of the lower kind will cease—the feeling, the smell, the taste—as they have a more immediate reference to the body, and are chiefly, if not wholly, intended for the preservation of it? But will not some kind of sight remain, although the eye be closed in death? And will there not be something in the soul equivalent to the present sense of hearing? Nay, is it not probable that these will not only exist in the separate state, but exist in a far greater degree, in a more eminent manner than now. When the soul, disentangled from its clay, is no longer

A dying sparkle in a cloudy place;

when it no longer

Looks through the windows of the eye and ear,

Wesley’s adaptation of Sir John Davies’s Nosce Teipsum (‘Of Human Knowledge’), Pt. I, st. 17:

How can we hope, that through the eye and ear,

This dying sparkle, in this cloudy place,

Can recollect these beams of knowledge clear

Which were infused in the first minds by grace?

St. 15 has the phrase ‘windows of the mind’ which Wesley conflated with l. 1, above. See also A Collection of Moral and Sacred Poems (1744), I.17.

02:289but rather is all eye, all ear, all sense, in a manner we cannot yet conceive. And have we not a clear proof of the possibility of this, of seeing without the use of the eye, and hearing without the use of the ear? Yea, and an earnest of it continually? For does not the soul see, in the clearest manner, when the eye is of no use, namely in dreams?

Cf. No. 124, ‘Human Life a Dream’, §4 and n.

Does she not then enjoy the faculty of hearing without any help from the ear? But however this be, certain it is that neither will our senses, any more than our speech, be entrusted to us in the manner they are now, when the body lies in the silent grave.

7. How far the knowledge or learning which we have gained by education will then remain, we cannot tell. Solomon indeed says, ‘There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest.’

Eccles. 9:10.

But it is evident, these words cannot be understood in an absolute sense; for it is so far from being true that there is no knowledge after we have quitted the body that the doubt lies on the other side, whether there be any such thing as real knowledge till then? Whether it be not a plain, sober truth, not a mere poetical fiction, that

…all these shadows which for things we take,

Are but the empty dreams which in death’s sleep we make

Cf. Abraham Cowley, Pindarique Odes, ‘Life’, II.22-23. See also, A Collection of Moral and Sacred Poems (1744), I.43.

—

only excepting those things which God himself has been pleased to reveal to man? I will speak for one. After having sought for truth with some diligence for half a century I am at this day hardly sure of anything but what I learn from the Bible. Nay, I positively affirm I know nothing else so certainly that I would dare to stake my salvation upon it.

So much, however, we may learn from Solomon’s words, that ‘there is no’ such ‘knowledge or wisdom in the grave’ as will be of any use to an unhappy spirit; there is ‘no device’ there whereby he can now improve those talents with which he was once entrusted. For time is no more: the time of our trial for everlasting happiness or misery is past. Our day, the day of man, is over; ‘the day of salvation’

2 Cor. 6:2; cf. Isa. 49:8.

is ended. Nothing now remains but the day of the Lord, ushering in wide, unchangeable eternity.

Cf. No. 54, ‘On Eternity’, §§1, 5-7.

8. But still our souls, being incorruptible and immortal, of a 02:290nature ‘little lower than the angels’

Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:7, 9.

(even if we are to understand that phrase of our original nature, which may well admit of a doubt), when our bodies are mouldered into earth, will remain with all their faculties. Our memory, our understanding, will be so far from being destroyed, yea, or impaired by the dissolution of the body, that on the contrary we have reason to believe they will be inconceivably strengthened. Have we not the clearest reason to believe that they will then be wholly freed from those defects which now naturally result from the union of the soul with the corruptible body? It is highly probable that from the time these are disunited our memory will let nothing slip; yea, that it will faithfully exhibit everything to our view which was ever committed to it. It is true that the invisible world is in Scripture termed ‘the land of forgetfulness’;

Ps. 88:12 (AV).

or, as it is still more strongly expressed in the old translation, ‘the land where all things are forgotten’.

Ibid. (BCP). Cf. No. 54, ‘On Eternity’, §20 and n.

They are forgotten; but by whom? Not by the inhabitants of that land, but by the inhabitants of the earth. It is with regard to them that the unseen world is ‘the land of forgetfulness’. All things therein are too frequently forgotten by these; but not by disembodied spirits. From the time they have put off the earthly tabernacle

See 2 Cor. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:13, 14.

we can hardly think they forget anything.

9. In like manner the understanding will doubtless be freed from the defects that are now inseparable from it. For many ages it has been an unquestioned maxim, humanum est errare et nescire

See above, No. 39, ‘Catholic Spirit’, I.4 and n.

—‘ignorance and mistake are inseparable from human nature.’ But the whole of this assertion is only true with regard to living men, and holds no longer than while ‘the corruptible body presses down the soul’.

Wisd. 9:15. Cf. No. 41, Wandering Thoughts, II.3 and n.

Ignorance indeed belongs to every finite understanding (seeing there is none beside God that knoweth all things), but not mistake. When the body is laid aside, this also is laid aside for ever.

10. What then can we say to an ingenious man who has lately made a discovery that disembodied spirits have not only no senses (not even sight or hearing), but no memory or understanding, no thought or perception, not so much as a consciousness of their 02:291own existence! That they are in a dead sleep from death to the resurrection!

This theory runs back to the Anabaptists, at least; cf. G. H. Williams, The Radical Reformation, pp. 20-24, 104-6, 580-92. It had been denounced by Calvin in one of his earliest essays, Psychopannychia; Or, a Refutation of the Error that the Soul Sleeps in the Interval Between Death and the Judgment (written in 1534; published in 1542). Cf. ‘First Part of the Sermon, against the Fear of Death’, Homilies, pp. 81-85. The same idea is analysed rather differently in John Donne’s famous sermon, ‘Death’s Duel’ (Sermon 15 in his XXVI Sermons [1660]).

The ‘ingenious man’ cited here, however, was Edmund Law (archdeacon of Carlisle; later bishop), who had advocated ‘mortalism’ in a D. D. exercise at Cambridge (1754), published as an ‘Appendix’ to the 3rd edn. of The Theory of Religion (1755). This ‘Appendix’ had been roundly criticized (e.g., by John Steffe [1758]) but had then been defended by Francis Blackbume, A Short Historical View Concerning An Intermediate State… (1765), and by Joseph Priestley, Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit… (1777), Sec. XIII, p. 155, and Sec. XVII, espec. p. 232. It is noteworthy that Wesley would have been so knowledgeable and yet also so casual in his references here and elsewhere to such a controversy; see No. 115, ‘Dives and Lazarus’, I.3 and n.

Consanguineus lethi sopor

Cf. Virgil, Aeneid, vi.278 (borrowed from Homer, Iliad, xiv.231). See also, Wesley’s Survey, V.254, where the same phrase appears in a different form, ‘consanguineus somni’. The English quotation which follows is, of course, Wesley’s translation of the Latin.

indeed! Such a sleep we may well call ‘a near kinsman of death’, if it be not the same thing. What can we say but that ingenious men have strange dreams; and these they sometimes mistake for realities.

Locke discusses this in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), II.i.17, and espec. II.xix.4. Cf. also No. 57, ‘On the Fall of Man’, II.2, where Wesley says: ‘the soul cannot dispense with [the body’s] service, imperfect as it is. For an embodied spirit cannot form one thought but by the mediation of its bodily organs. For thinking is not, as many suppose, an act of a pure spirit, but the act of a spirit connected with a body, and playing upon a set of material keys.’ Cf. also his letter to Mrs. Bennis, Oct 28, 1771; No. 132, ‘On Faith, Heb. 11:1’, §8; and his Survey, I.178.

11. But to return. As the soul will retain its understanding and memory, notwithstanding the dissolution of the body, so undoubtedly the will, including all the affections, will remain in its full vigour. If our love or anger, our hope or desire, perish, it is only with regard to those whom we leave behind. To them it matters not whether they were the objects of our love or hate, of our desire or aversion. But in separate spirits themselves we have no reason to believe that any of these are extinguished. It is more probable that they work with far greater force than while the soul was clogged with flesh and blood.

12. But although all these, although both our knowledge and senses, our memory and understanding, together with our will, our love, hate, and all our affections, remain after the body is dropped off, yet in this respect they are as though they were not; we are no longer stewards of them. The things continue, but our 02:292 stewardship does not; we no more act in that capacity. Even the grace which was formerly entrusted with us, in order to enable us to be faithful and wise stewards, is now no longer entrusted for that purpose. The days of our stewardship are ended.

III. 1. It now remains that, being ‘no longer stewards’, we ‘give an account of our stewardship’. Some have imagined, this is to be done immediately after death, as soon as we enter into the world of spirits. Nay, the Church of Rome does absolutely assert this; yea, makes it an article of faith.

This refers to the so-called ‘Doctrine of Particular Judgment’, which is not, strictly speaking, ‘an article of faith’ in the Roman Catholic Church. It affirms, as Wesley says, ‘that there are two judgments, a particular and a general’. The first divides the dead into three groups: (1) those free from all sin who are received forthwith into heaven (mox in coelum recipi); (2) those in a state of grace who need further purification; (3) those dying in mortal sin and impenitent who go forthwith to hell (mox in infernum descendere), to be punished in proportion to their sin (poenis tamen disparibus puniendas). See the decree of the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the ‘de sorte defunctorum’ in the ‘Union Decree’ of Eugenius IV, 1439 (Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum [24th edn.], 1304-6). Wesley and his Protestant colleagues had collapsed groups (2) and (3) and supposed that ‘Purgatory’ held out the promise of salvation to souls dying in mortal sin and unrepentant; see Wesley’s Roman Catechism (abridged from Bishop John Williams), Qq. 20-24, where Bellarmine and Trent are misread as if they taught a purgatorial hope for souls dying in mortal sin. But see George Bull, Some Important Points of Primitive Christianity (1713), Vol. I, Sermon II, pp. 25-49: ‘The soul of every man presently after death hath its proper place and state allotted by God, of happiness or misery, according as the man hath been good or bad in his past life.’ Cf. Wesley’s teachings on the intermediate state in No. 115, ‘Dives and Lazarus’, I.3 and n.

And thus much we may allow: the moment a soul drops the body, and stands naked before God, it cannot but know what its portion will be to all eternity. It will have full in its view either everlasting joy or everlasting torment, as it is no longer possible to be deceived in the judgment which we pass upon ourselves. But the Scripture gives us no reason to believe that God will then sit in judgment upon us. There is no passage in all the oracles of God which affirms any such thing. That which has been frequently alleged for this purpose seems rather to prove the contrary; namely, ‘It is appointed for men once to die, and after this, the judgment.’

Heb. 9:27.

For in all reason, the word ‘once’ is here to be applied to judgment as well as death. So that the fair inference to be drawn from this very text is, not that there are two judgments, a particular and a general, but that we are to be judged, as well as to die, once only; not once immediately after death, and again after the general resurrection, but then only 02:293‘when the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all his holy angels with him’.

Cf. Matt. 25:31.

The imagination therefore of one judgment at death, and another at the end of the world, can have no place with those who make the written Word of God the whole and sole standard of their faith.

2. The time then when we are to give this account is when the ‘great white throne comes down from heaven, and he that sitteth thereon, from whose face the heavens and the earth flee away, and there is found no place for them’.

Cf. Rev. 20:11.

It is then ‘the dead, small, and great,’ will ‘stand before God; and the books’ will be ‘opened’

Cf. Rev. 20:12.

—the book of Scripture, to them who were entrusted therewith, the book of conscience to all mankind. The ‘book of remembrance’

Mal. 3:16.

likewise (to use another scriptural expression), which had been writing from the foundation of the world,

Matt. 13:35, etc. ‘writing’ is the erratum in Wesley’s Works (1771) for ‘written’ (Mal. 3:16) present in all the other printed edns.

will then be laid open to the view of all the children of men. Before all these, even the whole human race, before the devil and his angels,

Matt. 25:41.

before an innumerable company of holy angels,

Heb. 12:22.

and before God the Judge of all;

Gen. 18:25; Heb. 12:23.

thou wilt appear without any shelter or covering, without any possibility of disguise, to give a particular account of the manner wherein thou hast employed all thy Lord’s goods.

3. The Judge of all will then inquire: ‘How didst thou employ thy soul? I entrusted thee with an immortal spirit, endowed with various powers and faculties, with understanding, imagination, memory, will, affections. I gave thee withal full and express directions how all these were to be employed. Didst thou employ thy understanding, as far as it was capable, according to those directions, namely, in the knowledge of thyself and me? My nature, my attributes? My works, whether of creation, of providence, or of grace? In acquainting thyself with my Word? In using every means to increase thy knowledge thereof? In meditating thereon day and night?

See Josh. 1:8.

Didst thou employ thy memory according to my will? In treasuring up whatever knowledge thou hadst acquired which might conduce to my glory, to thy own salvation, or the advantage of others? Didst thou store 02:294up therein, not things of no value, but whatever experience thou hadst learned from my Word; and whatever experience thou hadst gained of my wisdom, truth, power, and mercy? Was thy imagination employed, not in painting vain images, much less such as nourished foolish and hurtful desires,

1 Tim. 6:9.

but in representing to thee whatever would profit thy soul, and awaken thy pursuit of wisdom and holiness? Didst thou follow my directions with regard to thy will? Was it wholly given up to me? Was it swallowed up in mine, so as never to oppose, but always run parallel with it? Were thy affections placed and regulated in such a manner as I appointed in my Word? Didst thou give me thy heart? Didst thou not love the world, neither the things of the world?

See 1 John 2:15.

Was I the object of thy love? Was all thy desire unto me, and unto the remembrance of my name? Was I the joy of thy heart, the delight of thy soul, the chief among ten thousand?

S. of S. 5:10.

Didst thou sorrow for nothing but what grieved my spirit? Didst thou fear and hate nothing but sin? Did the whole stream of thy affections flow back to the ocean from whence they came? Were thy thoughts employed according to my will? Not in ranging to the ends of the earth, not on folly, or sin; but on “whatsoever things were pure, whatsoever things were holy”,

Cf. Phil. 4:8.

on whatsoever was conducive to my “glory”, and to “peace and goodwill among men”?’

Cf. Luke 2:14.

4. Thy Lord will then inquire, ‘How didst thou employ the body wherewith I entrusted thee? I gave thee a tongue to praise me therewith. Didst thou use it to the end for which it was given? Didst thou employ it, not in evil-speaking or idle-speaking, not in uncharitable or unprofitable conversation; but in such as was good, as was necessary or useful, either to thyself or others? Such as always tended, directly or indirectly, to “minister grace to the hearers”?

Eph. 4:29.

I gave thee, together with thy other senses, those grand avenues of knowledge, sight, and hearing. Were these employed to those excellent purposes for which they were bestowed upon thee? In bringing thee in more and more instruction in righteousness

2 Tim. 3:16.

and true holiness? I gave thee hands and feet and various members wherewith to perform the works which were prepared for thee. Were they employed, not in doing “the will of the flesh”,

Cf. John 1:13.

of thy evil nature, or “the will of the 02:295mind”,

Cf. ibid.

the things to which thy reason or fancy led thee, but “the will of him that sent”

John 6:38.

thee into the world, merely to work out thy own salvation?

See Phil. 2:12.

Didst thou present all thy members, not to sin, as instruments of unrighteousness, but to me alone, through the Son of my love, “as instruments of righteousness”?’

Rom. 6:13.

5. The Lord of all will next inquire, ‘How didst thou employ the worldly goods which I lodged in thy hands? Didst thou use thy food, not so as to seek or place thy happiness therein, but so as to preserve thy body in health, in strength and vigour, a fit instrument for the soul? Didst thou use apparel, not to nourish pride or vanity, much less to tempt others to sin, but conveniently and decently to defend thyself from the injuries of the weather? Didst thou prepare and use thy house and all other conveniences with a single eye to my glory? In every point seeking not thy own honour, but mine; studying to please, not thyself, but me? Once more: in what manner didst thou employ that comprehensive talent, money? Not in gratifying the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, or the pride of life?

1 John 2:16.

Not squandering it away in vain expenses, the same as throwing it into the sea? Not hoarding it up to leave behind thee, the same as burying it in the earth? But first supplying thy own reasonable wants, together with those of thy family; then restoring the remainder to me, through the poor, whom I had appointed to receive it; looking upon thyself as only one of that number of poor whose wants were to be supplied out of that part of my substance which I had placed in thy hands for this purpose; leaving thee the right of being supplied first, and the blessedness of giving rather than receiving?

See Acts 20:35. A crucial clarification of the rule in No. 50, ‘The Use of Money’, III.1-2: ‘Give all you can.’ Our stewardship of wealth is to God, ‘through the poor, whom [God has] appointed to receive it’. Charity is an expression of benevolence but, more, it is a specification of the Christian’s accountability to God.

Wast thou accordingly a general benefactor to mankind? Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the sick, assisting the stranger, relieving the afflicted according to their various necessities?

See Matt. 25:35-36.

Wast thou eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame?

See Job 29:15.

A father to the fatherless, and an husband to the widow?

See Ps. 68:5.

And didst thou labour to improve all outward works of mercy, as means of saving souls from death?’

See Jas. 5:20.

02:2966. Thy Lord will farther inquire: ‘Hast thou been a wise and faithful steward with regard to the talents of a mixed nature which I lent thee? Didst thou employ thy health and strength, not in folly or sin, not in the pleasures which perished in the using, “not in making provision for the flesh, to fulfil the desires thereof”,

Rom. 13:14.

but in a vigorous pursuit of that better part which none could take away from thee?

See Luke 10:42.

Didst thou employ whatever was pleasing in thy person or address, whatever advantages thou hadst by education, whatever share of learning, whatever knowledge of things or men was committed thee, for the promoting of virtue in the world, for the enlargement of my kingdom? Didst thou employ whatever share of power thou hadst, whatever influence over others, by the love or esteem of thee which they had conceived, for the increase of their wisdom and holiness? Didst thou employ that inestimable talent of time with wariness and circumspection, as duly weighing the value of every moment, and knowing that all were numbered in eternity? Above all, wast thou a good steward of my grace, preventing, accompanying, and following thee? Didst thou duty observe and carefully improve all the influences of my Spirit? Every good desire? Every measure of light? All his sharp or gentle reproofs? How didst thou profit by “the spirit of bondage and fear” which was previous to “the Spirit of adoption”?

Rom. 8:15.

And when thou wast made a partaker of this Spirit, “crying in thy heart, Abba, Father”,

Ibid.

didst thou stand fast in the glorious liberty wherewith I made thee free? Didst thou from thenceforth present thy soul and body, all thy thoughts, thy words, and actions, in one flame of love, as an holy sacrifice, glorifying me with thy body and thy spirit?

See 1 Cor. 6:20.

Then “well done, good and faithful servant! […] Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord!”’

Matt. 25:21, 23.

And what will remain, either to the faithful or unfaithful steward? Nothing but the execution of that sentence which has been passed by the righteous Judge; fixing thee in a state which admits of no change, through everlasting ages. It remains only that thou be rewarded to all eternity according to thy works.

IV. 1. From these plain considerations we may learn, first, how important is this short, uncertain day of life! How precious, above all utterance, above all conception, is every portion of it!

02:297

The least of these a serious care demands;

For though they are little, they are golden sands!

Cf. John Gambold, ‘Upon Listening to the Vibrations of a Clock’, ll. 5-6, in his Works (1789), p. 266. Wesley had published this in his Moral and Sacred Poems (1744), III.195. See also Wesley’s letter to Samuel Furly, Nov. 10, 1756. Though Wesley and Gambold had long since parted company, Wesley is still prepared to quote his quondam friend.

How deeply does it concern every child of man to let none of these run to waste; but to improve them all to the noblest purposes as long as the breath of God is in his nostrils!

2. We learn from hence, secondly, that there is no employment of our time, no action or conversation, that is purely indifferent. All is good or bad, because all our time, as everything we have, is not our own. All these are, as our Lord speaks, τὰ ἀλλότρια,

Luke 16:12; cf. above, I.1.

the property of another—of God, our Creator. Now these either are or are not employed according to his will. If they are so employed, all is good; if they are not, all is evil. Again: it is his will that we should continually grow in grace and in the living knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

See 2 Pet. 3:18.

Consequently every thought, word, and work whereby this knowledge is increased, whereby we grow in grace, is good; and every one whereby this knowledge is not increased is truly and properly evil.

3. We learn from hence, thirdly, that there are no works of supererogation,

Cf. Art. XIV, which rejects all such ‘voluntary works besides, over and above, God’s commandments’. These may not be claimed ‘without arrogance and impiety’. In the Roman perspective, they are virtuous acts surpassing what is required by moral duty or legal obligation. They are thus compared to other works, ‘not as good works to evil ones but as better works to good ones’ (cf. The New Catholic Encyclopedia). And even Wesley allows for this distinction in his doctrine of facere quod in se est.

that we can never do more than our duty; seeing all we have is not our own, but God’s, all we can do is due to him. We have not received this or that, or many things only, but everything from him: therefore everything is his due. He that gives us all must needs have a right to all. So that if we pay him anything less than all we cannot be ‘faithful stewards’. And considering ‘every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour,’

1 Cor. 3:8.

we cannot be ‘wise stewards’ unless we labour to the uttermost of our power; not leaving anything undone which we possibly can do, but putting forth all our strength.

4. Brethren, ‘Who is an understanding man and endued with knowledge among you?’

Cf. Jas. 3:13.

Let him show the wisdom from above 02:298by walking suitably to his character. If he so account of himself as a steward of the manifold gifts of God, let him see that all his thoughts, and words, and works be agreeable to the post God has assigned him. It is no small thing to lay out for God all which you have received from God. It requires all your wisdom, all your resolution, all your patience and constancy; far more than ever you had by nature, but not more than you may have by grace. For his grace is sufficient for you,

See 2 Cor. 12:9.

and ‘all things’, you know, ‘are possible to him that believeth.’

Mark 9:23.

By faith, then, ‘put on the Lord Jesus Christ;’

Rom. 13:14.

‘put on the whole armour of God,’

Eph. 6:11.

and you shall be enabled to glorify him in all your words and works, yea, to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

See 2 Cor. 10:5.

Edinburgh

May 14, 1768

How to Cite This Entry

, “” in , last modified February 28, 2024, https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon051.

Bibliography:

, “.” In , edited by . , 2024. Entry published February 28, 2024. https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon051.

About this Entry

Entry Title: Sermon 51: The Good Steward

Copyright and License for Reuse

Show full citation information...