Sermon

# found: 0

Toggle:

Notes:

Sermon 91: On Charity

https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon091

03:290 An Introductory Comment

More often than not, Wesley’s published sermons were from texts infrequently used in his oral preaching. This sermon, however, is an interesting exception: it was written in London, October 15, 1784 (a year in which he used it a dozen times for oral sermons). It then appeared in the first two instalments of ‘Original Sermons by the Rev. John Wesley, M.A.’ in the Arminian Magazine of 1785, VIII.8-16, 70-76, without a title but numbered as ‘Sermon XXV’. Three years later (1788), it reappeared in SOSO, VII.233-56.

In the interval he continued to use 1 Cor. 13:1-3 (eight times in 1785; three times in 1787). And, by a happy accident, we can compare his written sermon with an oral sermon on the same text which is remarkably close to the written text. There is in the Drew University Library a unique manuscript précis of a ‘Charity Sermon’ by ‘John Westley’, preached in the church of St. John’s Clerkenwell (near The Charterhouse and not far from Wesley’s New Chapel on City Road; in 1787 it was a prominent parish church, but in 1962 was restored to its original status as the local priory church of the Knights Templar). This memoir deserves publication here as the only instance on record where we have a full report of an oral sermon and its written counterpart. Moreover, it is a careful report by an obviously well-educated and attentive hearer (maybe the rector?) who is evidently one of ‘Mr. Westley’s’ admirers but not, as it would appear, a Methodist himself:

“

Minutes of a Sermon preach’d at St. John’s Clerkenwell
by Mr. John Westley, Dec. 16, 1787.
Mr. Westley was then 85 years of age
The text was 1 Cor. 13, v. 3 [quoted from the AV].

Mr. Westley began his discourse by defining the true religion which, he said, did not consist in opinion but in a proper temper and disposition of mind towards God and man. He then adverted to the word ‘charity’ in the text. In all the old translations of the Bible, he said, the word ἀγάπη was translated ‘love’: in the Bishops’ Bible published in the time of Henry the Eighth, in all the editions printed in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth, King Edward the Sixth, and James the First. The first edition where the word ‘charity’ occurs, he said, was that printed by Roger Daniel in 1647; later editions have adopted 03:291the same word, which is neither English nor good Latin. By ‘love’ he understood love towards our neighbour: a spirit of universal goodwill and benevolence. He then proceeded to show more particularly the nature and excellence of this ‘love’, and its superiority over the other virtues and qualities mentioned in the text and the preceding verses.

In mentioning the properties of love when he came to the passage, ‘is not easily provoked’, he observed that in all the translations of the Bible which he had seen in foreign languages, in the Dutch, German, French, and Italian, the word ‘easily’ was entirely left out. The English was the only translation which had that expression which was by no means justified by the original οὐ παροξύνεται. Why then, says he, did the translators of the Bible introduce this word? From very good motives, I doubt not; recollecting St. Paul’s conduct as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, they were unwilling that that conduct should seem contrary to his own rules. But, says he (quoting the passage, Acts 15, v. 36-39), it appears from hence that the anger was on the side of Barnabas and not of Paul. Away, then, with the word ‘easily’, and restore the original meaning without any modification.

Speaking of the superiority of charity or love over prophecy, he told the following story: ‘During the last continental war, it was rumoured here in England that a soldier in Flanders had prophesied some strange things which fell out just as he had foretold I suspended my belief till ——— returned (mentioning some person on whose veracity he could depend [i.e., John Haime]). He confirmed these reports and said that the officers had sent for the man, who persisted before them in the truth of his prophecies, which were relative to the events of the war, and said that he would give them three signs of his veracity. The first was that on the morrow morning there would be a very terrible storm of thunder and lightning. The second was that they should have a general engagement with the French within three days (an event very little expected) and [the third was] that he himself should be ordered to advance in the front line—if he was a false prophet he should be killed; if not, he should only receive a musket ball in the calf of his leg. All this happened as foretold. The next morning there was such a storm of thunder and lightning as had not been known in the memory of man. Within three days, the obstinate old Duke of Cumberland, without sense or reason, brought his troops to an engagement and the Battle of Fontenoy ensued. And this soldier advancing in the front line received a musket ball in the calf of his leg. Now this man, says Mr. W, when he came to England, was sent for by the Countess of Stair and many of the nobility, to whom he related the story, till at last he absolutely became mad with pride and was obliged to be confined till within these two years when, having a small glimmering of reason, he praised God and died. What was this man the better for his prophecy? It elated his heart and he narrowly escaped dying in his sins.’

To illustrate the passage in the text, ‘Tho’ I give my body to be burned’, he said that if the poor sufferers burnt at an auto-da-fé by command of the Inquisition, instead of praying for their persecutors and following the example of Christ, are full of malice and revenge against them, tho’ they die in the flames, I will not say that they will go to God.

Having summed up all by saying that whatever we do, whatever we hope, whatever we believe, yet if love be wanting we shall not be meet partakers of the Kingdom of Heaven, he adverted to the subject of the day (it was a ‘Charity Sermon’). When he was a boy, he said, there were only two hospitals in London: St. Thomas’s and St. Bartholomew’s. A child, going along Deans’s Yard [Westminster], picked up a French book giving an account of the great hospital at Paris [L’Hôtel de Dieu]. He carried it to his father who showed it to Mr. Wesley’s father (or uncle) who was then head usher at Westminster School [i.e., his brother, Samuel Wesley, Jun.]. ‘Come’, says Mr. W, ‘let 03:292>us found an hospital.’ The other gentleman said, ‘You are jocular.’ Mr. W. assured him he was serious, and the very next day they went about soliciting contributions, in which they succeeded so well that the Hyde Park Hospital [i.e., St. George’s] was soon after built. Mr. Wesley then briefly mentioned the number of charitable institutions which are now established, and concluded with a fine exhortation to induce his audience to contribute upon the present occasion [to the Finsbury Dispensary; cf. JWJ, Dec. 16, 1787].

Soon after Mr. Westley had begun his discourse, he made a pause and said: ‘This I learned of a good man, Mr. Romaine, to pause every now and then, especially in the wintertime, that those who happen to be troubled with coughs may have an opportunity of easing themselves without interrupting the congregation.’

N.B. Mr. Westley’s sermon was 45 minutes in delivering. He preached without notes and had a small Bible in his hand.

Wesley’s printed text can be read through, at a homiletical pace, in thirty-five minutes; but note that it omits the story about Samuel Wesley, Jun.’s role in helping to found St. George’s and also John’s ‘fine exhortation to induce the audience to contribute upon the present occasion’, as well as the pauses allowed for coughing.

” On Charity

1 Corinthians 13:1-3

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

We know, ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,’

2 Tim. 3:16.

and is therefore true and right concerning all things. But we know, likewise, that there are some Scriptures which more immediately commend themselves to every man’s conscience. In this rank we may place the passage before us; there are scarce any that object to it. On the contrary, the generality of men very readily appeal 03:293to it. Nothing is more common than to find even those who deny the authority of the Holy Scriptures yet affirming, ‘This is my religion—that which is described in the thirteenth chapter of the Corinthians.’ Nay, even a Jew, Dr. Nunes,

Samuel Nuñez arrived in Savannah, July 10, 1733, and in the following December was awarded lot 43 in the new town; cf. E. Merton Coulter and Albert B. Sayre, eds., A List of the Early Settlers of Georgia (Athens, Univ. of Georgia Press, 1949), p. 91. He left Aug. 30, 1740. There are several references to Dr. Nuñez in Wesley’s diary; JWJ, Apr. 4, 1737, has this entry: ‘I began learning Spanish in order to converse with my Jewish parishioners [some eight in all]; some of whom seem nearer the mind that was in Christ than many of those who call him Lord.’ William Stephens (in 1737) also speaks of ‘Henriquez Nuñis, a Jew inhabitant’, as being ‘one of the greatest substance in Savannah’; cf. A Journal of the Proceedings in Georgia (1742), I.21.

a Spanish physician, then settled at Savannah, in Georgia, used to say with great earnestness: ‘That Paul of Tarsus was one of the finest writers I have ever read. I wish the thirteenth chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians were wrote in letters of gold. And I wish every Jew were to carry it with him wherever he went.’ He judged (and herein he certainly judged right) that this single chapter contained the whole of true religion. It contains ‘whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise’,

Phil. 4:8.

it is all contained in this.

In order to see this in the clearest light, we may consider,

First, what the charity here spoken of is;

Secondly, what those things are which are usually put in the place of it. We may then,

Thirdly, observe that neither any of them, nor all of them put together, can supply the want of it.

1I. 1. We are first to consider what this charity is. What is the nature, and what are the properties of it?

St. Paul’s word is ἀγάπη, exactly answering to the plain English word ‘love’.

For Wesley’s preference for ‘love’ as the translation of ἀγάπη, see No. 17, ‘The Circumcision of the Heart’, I.2 and n.

And accordingly it is so rendered in all the old translations of the Bible. So it stood in William Tyndale’s Bible, which I suppose was the first English translation of the whole Bible. So it was also in the Bible published in London by the authority of King Henry VIII.

The first English translation (Wycliffe, 1380) had ‘charity’; successive translations (Tyndale, 1534; Coverdale, 1535; Cranmer, 1539; and the Geneva Bible, 1557) have ‘love’, as does the first edition of the Bishops’ Bible (1568). But, curiously enough, the second (and subsequent) edition of the Bishops’ Bible (1572) reads ‘charity’, the first known instance of this usage since Wycliffe. The moving spirit behind this revision was Giles Lawrence, friend of John Jewel and professor of Greek at Oxford; cf. T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible (1903), revised by A. S. Herbert (1968), Nos. 125 and 132. All the Douai-Rheims editions (1st, 1582) read ‘charity’, but note that they had been anticipated by Lawrence. In the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible the text reads ‘love’, but there is an extended marginal annotation that amounts to a short homily ‘On Charity’. Thus, the translators of the AV (1611) had a precedent for their preference for ‘charity’ over ‘love’ in this chapter.

So it was likewise in all the 03:294editions of the Bible that were successively published in England during the reign of King Edward VI, Queen Elizabeth, and King James I. Nay, so it is found in the Bibles of King Charles I’s reign—I believe, to the period of it. The first Bibles I have seen wherein the word was changed were those printed by Roger Daniel and John Field, printers to the Parliament, in the year 1649. Hence it appears, that the alteration was made during the reign of the Long Parliament; then it was that the Latin word ‘charity’ was put in the place of the plain English word ‘love’.

Wesley is more cautious in his text of 1788: ‘Hence it seems probable that the alteration was made during the sitting of the Long Parliament [1640-48]; probably it was then that the Latin word “charity” was put in the place of the English word “love”.’ But the facts are otherwise. None of a dozen representative editions of the AV (between 1611 and 1658) has ‘love’; it was not the Presbyterians who were responsible for the alteration; the first solo printing of the Bible by Roger Daniel is dated 1645 (and reads ‘charity’) and John Field’s first Bible is dated 1648; neither printed a Bible in 1649, nor did they ever collaborate on a joint edition. Wesley’s heavy stress on ‘love’ as the proper translation of ἀγάπη (cf. his translation of 1 Cor. 13 in Notes [1755]) was, therefore, more innovative than he seems to have realized, despite the older traditions to which he appeals. Even so, he had the backing of both Poole and Henry in this preference for ‘love’ over ‘charity’.

It was in an unhappy hour this alteration was made; the ill effects of it remain to this day; and these may be observed not only among the poor and illiterate; not only thousands of common men and women no more understand the word charity than they do the original Greek, but the same miserable mistake has diffused itself among men of education and learning. Thousands of these also are misled thereby, and imagine that the charity treated of in this chapter refers chiefly, if not wholly, to outward actions, and to mean little more than almsgiving. I have heard many sermons preached upon this chapter, particularly before the University of Oxford. And I never heard more than one wherein the meaning of it was not totally misrepresented. But had the old and proper word ‘love’ been retained, there would have been no room for misrepresentation.

22. But what kind of love is that whereof the Apostle is speaking throughout the chapter? Many persons of eminent learning 03:295and piety apprehend that it is the love of God. But from reading the whole chapter numberless times, and considering it in every light, I am thoroughly persuaded that what St. Paul is here directly speaking of is the love of our neighbour. I believe whoever carefully weighs the whole tenor of his discourse will be fully convinced of this. But it must be allowed to be such a love of our neighbour as can only spring from the love of God. And whence does this love of God flow? Only from that faith which is of the operation of God;

See Col. 2:12.

which whoever has, has a direct evidence that ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.’

2 Cor. 5:19.

When this is particularly applied to his heart, so that he can say with humble boldness, ‘The life which I now live, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me;’

Gal. 2:20.

then, and not till then, ‘the love of God is shed abroad in his heart.’

Cf. Rom. 5:5.

And this love sweetly constrains him to love every child of man with the love which is here spoken of; not with a love of esteem or of complacence—for this can have no place with regard to those who are (if not his personal enemies, yet) enemies to God and their own souls—but with a love of benevolence, of tender goodwill to all the souls that God has made.

A general eighteenth-century theme, as in Joseph Butler’s Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel (1726), Law’s Serious Call (Works, xx.220): ‘Benevolence to all our fellow creatures as creatures of God and for his sake…. This love that loves all things in God as his creatures’, and in Johnson, Dictionary (‘charity’). See No. 94, On Family Religion’, I.3.

33. But it may be asked: ‘If there be no true love of our neighbour but that which springs from the love of God; and if the love of God flows from no other fountain than faith in the Son of God; does it not follow that the whole heathen world is excluded from all possibility of salvation? Seeing they are cut off from faith; for faith cometh by hearing.

Rom. 10:17.

And how shall they hear without a preacher?’

Rom. 10:14.

I answer, St. Paul’s words, spoken on another occasion, are applicable to this: ‘What the law speaketh, it speaketh to them that are under the law.’

Cf. Rom. 3:19.

Accordingly that sentence, ‘He that believeth not shall be damned,’

Mark 16:16.

is spoken of them to whom the gospel is preached. Others it does not concern; 03:296and we are not required to determine anything touching their final state.

For other references to the salvability of the heathen (as yet another implication of Wesley’s ‘catholic spirit’), cf. Nos. 106, ‘On Faith, Heb. 11:16’, I.4; 127, ‘On the Wedding Garment’, §17; 130, ‘On Living without God’, §14; cf. also No. 44, Original Sin, I.5 and n. See Michael Hurley, S.J., ‘Salvation Today and Wesley Today’, in Kenneth E. Rowe, ed., The Place of Wesley in the Christian Tradition, pp. 101-12.

How it will please God, the Judge of all, to deal with them, we may leave to God himself. But this we know, that he is not the God of the Christians only, but the God of the heathens also; that he is ‘rich in mercy to all that call upon him’,

Cf. Rom. 10:12.

‘according to the light they have’;

Cf. Rom. 12:6. Note Wesley’s casual reiteration here of the medieval theme of divine-human synergism (in se est).

and that ‘in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him.’

Cf. Acts 10:35.

44. But to return. This is the nature of that love whereof the Apostle is here speaking. But what are the properties of it, the fruits which are inseparable from it? The Apostle reckons up many of them; but the principal of them are these:

First, ‘Love is not puffed up.’

1 Cor. 13:4 (Notes).

As is the measure of love, so is the measure of humility. Nothing humbles the soul so deeply as love: it casts out all ‘high conceits, engendering pride’,

Milton, Paradise Lost, iv.809.

all arrogance and overweaning, makes us little, and poor, and base, and vile in our own eyes. It abases us both before God and man; makes us willing to be the least of all, and the servants of all, and teaches us to say, ‘A mote in the sunbeam is little, but I am infinitely less in the presence of God.’

A recollection from de Renty; cf. Edward Sheldon’s translation of Saint-Jure, The Holy Life of Monsr. de Renty, p. 59: ‘He said, “A mote in the sun is very little, but yet I am far less in the presence of God, for I am not any thing.”’

55. Secondly, ‘Love is not provoked.’

1 Cor. 13:5 (Notes); cf. No. 22, ‘Sermon on the Mount, II’, III.10 and n.

Our present English translation renders it, ‘is not easily provoked’.

Here, Wesley has all the precedents with him, including Douai-Rheims. ‘Easily’ first appears in 1611.

But how did the word ‘easily’ come in? There is not a tittle of it in the text: the words of the Apostle are simply these, οὐ παροξύνεται.

παροξίζω is the root verb from which ‘paroxysm’ is derived and more often connotes exasperation, ‘acute provocation’, than mere ‘provocation’; cf. Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, and NEB, ‘not quick to take offence’. The Twentieth Century New Testament agrees with Wesley and his predecessors: ‘Love is never provoked.’

Is it not 03:297probable it was inserted by the translators with a design to excuse St. Paul, for fear his practice should appear to contradict his doctrine? For we read:

“And some days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them who departed from the work. And the contention was so sharp between them that they departed asunder one from the other; and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, continuing the churches.

Acts 15, ver. 36 and seq.

”

66. Would not anyone think on reading these words that they were both equally sharp? That Paul was just as hot as Barnabas, and as much wanting in love as he? But the text says no such thing, as will be plain if we consider first the occasion. When St. Paul proposed that they should ‘again visit the brethren in every city where they had preached the word’, so far they were agreed. ‘And Barnabas determined to take with him John,’ because he was his sister’s son, without receiving or asking St. Paul’s advice. ‘But Paul thought [it] not good to take him with them who had departed from them from Pamphylia’ (whether through sloth or cowardice) ‘and went not with them to the work.’ And undoubtedly he thought right: he had reason on his side. The following words are, καὶ ἐγένετο παροξυσμός;

Acts 15:39. Wesley is here quoting from memory; the text actually reads ἐγένετο δὲ παροξυσμός. This incident interested Wesley very much; cf. No. 22, ‘Sermon on the Mount, II’, III.10 and n.

literally, ‘and there was a fit of anger.’ It does not say in St. Paul; probably it was in Barnabas alone, who thus supplied the want of reason with passion, so ‘that they departed asunder’. ‘And Barnabas’, resolved to have his own way, did as his nephew had done before, ‘departed from the work, took Mark with him, and sailed to Cyprus’. But Paul went on in his work, ‘being recommended by the brethren to the grace of God’ (which Barnabas seems not to have stayed for). ‘And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.’ From the whole account, it does not appear that St. Paul was in any fault; that he either felt any temper, or spoke any word contrary to [03:298]the law of love. Therefore not being in any fault, he does not need any excuse.

77. Certainly he who is full of love is ‘gentle towards all men’.

2 Tim. 2:24 (Notes).

He ‘in meekness instructs those that oppose themselves’,

Cf. 2 Tim. 2:25.

that oppose what he loves the most, even the truth of God, or that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord;

Heb. 12:14.

not knowing but ‘God peradventure may bring them to the knowledge of the truth.’

Cf. 2 Tim. 2:25.

However provoked, he does ‘not return evil for evil, or railing for railing’.

Cf. 1 Pet. 3:9.

Yea, he ‘blesses those that curse him, and does good to them that despitefully use him and persecute him’.

Matt. 5:44 (Notes).

He ‘is not overcome of evil, but’ always ‘overcomes evil with good’.

Cf. Rom. 12:21.

88. Thirdly, ‘love is long-suffering.’

Cf. 1 Cor. 13:4.

It ‘endures’ not a few affronts, reproaches, injuries, but ‘all things’

1 Cor. 13:7.

which God is pleased to permit either men or devils to inflict. It arms the soul with inviolable patience; not harsh, stoical patience, but yielding as the air, which, making no resistance to the stroke, receives no harm thereby. The lover of mankind remembers him who suffered for us, ‘leaving us an example, that we might tread in his steps’.

Cf. 1 Pet. 2:21.

Accordingly, ‘if his enemy hunger, he feeds him;’ if he thirst, he ‘gives him drink’; and by so doing he heaps coals of fire, of melting love, upon his head.

Cf. Rom. 12:20. Poole’s Annotations on this text cite his parallel comment on Prov. 25:22: ‘Thou shalt melt him into repentance, inflame him with love and kindness to thee for so unexpected and undeserved a favour.’

And ‘many waters cannot quench’ this ‘love;’ ‘neither can’ even ‘the floods’ of ingratitude ‘drown it.’

Cf. S. of S. 8:7.

1II. 1. We are, secondly, to inquire what those things are which it is commonly supposed will supply the place of love. And the first of these is eloquence—a faculty of talking well, particularly on religious subjects. Men are generally inclined to think well of one that talks well. If he speaks properly and fluently of God and the things of God, who can doubt of his being in God’s favour? And it is very natural for him to think well of himself, to have as favourable an opinion of himself as others have.

03:299

22. But men of reflection are not satisfied with this: they are not content with a flood of words; they prefer thinking before talking, and judge, one that knows much is far preferable to one that talks much. And it is certain, knowledge is an excellent gift of God; particularly knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, in which are contained all the depths of divine knowledge and wisdom. Hence it is generally thought that a man of much knowledge, knowledge of Scripture in particular, must not only be in the favour of God, but likewise enjoy a high degree of it.

33. But men of deeper reflection are apt to say: ‘I lay no stress upon any other knowledge but the knowledge of God by faith. Faith is the only knowledge which in the sight of God is of great price.

See 1 Pet. 3:4; and cf. No. 88, ‘On Dress’, §12, which quotes the same passage from its text, 1 Pet. 3:3-4.

“We are saved by faith;”

Cf. Eph. 2:8.

by faith alone: this is the one thing needful. He that believeth, and he alone, shall be saved everlastingly.’ There is much truth in this: it is unquestionably true that ‘we are saved by faith;’ consequently, that ‘he that believeth shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned.’

Cf. Mark 16:16.

44. But some men will say, with the Apostle James, ‘Show me thy faith without thy works’ (if thou canst; but indeed it is impossible), ‘and I will show thee my faith by my works.’

Jas. 2:18.

And many are hereby induced to think that good works, works of piety and mercy,

Cf. No. 14, The Repentance of Believers, I.13 and n.

are of far more consequence than faith itself, and will supply the want of every other qualification for heaven. Indeed, this seems to be the general sentiment, not only of the members of the Church of Rome, but of Protestants also; not of the giddy and thoughtless, but the serious members of our own Church.

55. And this cannot be denied, our Lord himself hath said, ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits:’

Matt. 7:16.

by their works ye know them that believe, and them that believe not. But yet it may be doubted whether there is not a surer proof of the sincerity of our faith than even our works; that is, our willingly suffering for righteousness’ sake;

Cf. Matt. 5:10; 1 Pet. 3:14.

especially if after suffering reproach, and pain, and loss of friends and substance, a man gives up life itself, yea, by a shameful and painful death, by giving his body to be burned,

Cf. 1 Cor. 13:3.

03:300rather than he would give up faith and a good conscience by neglecting his known duty.

66. It is proper to observe here, first, what a beautiful gradation there is, each step rising above the other in the enumeration of those several things which some or other of those that are called Christians, and are usually accounted so, really believe will supply the absence of love. St. Paul begins at the lowest point, ‘talking well’, and advances step by step, every one rising higher than the preceding, till he comes to the highest of all. A step above eloquence is knowledge; faith is a step above this. Good works are a step above that faith. And even above this, is suffering for righteousness’ sake. Nothing is higher than this but Christian love

Cf. Richard Lucas, Enquiry After Happiness (1717), III.410: ‘Love is the last round in the scale of perfection,’ and Robert Barclay’s comment on Rom. 8:30, in his Apology (1736 edn.), Prop. VII, Of Justification’, pp. 220, 224: ‘This [gradation] is commonly called The Golden Chain, as being acknowledged to comprehend the method and order of salvation.’ For other comments of Wesley on the instrumentality of faith to love, see No. 36, ‘The Law Established through Faith, II’, II.1-2.

—the love of our neighbour flowing from the love of God.

77. It may be proper to observe, secondly, that whatever passes for religion in any part of the Christian world (whether it be a part of religion, or no part at all, but either folly, superstition, or wickedness) may with very little difficulty be reduced to one or other of these heads. Everything which is supposed to be religion, either by Protestants or Romanists, and is not, is contained under one or another of these five particulars. Make trial, as often as you please, with anything that is called religion, but improperly so called, and you will find the rule to hold without any exception.

1ΙII. 1. I am now, in the third place, to demonstrate to all who have ears to hear, who do not harden themselves against conviction, that neither any one of these five qualifications, nor all of them together, will avail anything before God without the love above described.

In order to do this in the clearest manner we may consider them one by one. And first, ‘though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels’

1 Cor. 13:1.

—with an eloquence such as never was found in men, concerning the nature, attributes, and works of God, whether of creation or providence; though I were not herein a whit behind the chief of the apostles, preaching like St. Peter and [03:301]praying like St. John; yet unless humble, gentle, patient love be the ruling temper of my soul, I am no better in the judgment of God ‘than sounding brass, or a rumbling cymbal’.

Ibid. For Wesley’s preference for ‘rumbling’ over the consensus translation, ‘tinkling’, cf. No. 89, ‘The More Excellent Way’, §4, proem, and n.

The highest eloquence, therefore, either in private conversation or in public ministrations; the brightest talent, either for preaching or prayer, if it was not joined with humble, meek, and patient resignation, might sink me the deeper into hell, but will not bring me one step nearer heaven.

22. A plain instance may illustrate this. I knew a young man, between fifty and sixty years ago, who during the course of several years never endeavoured to convince anyone of a religious truth but he was convinced; and he never endeavoured to persuade anyone to engage in a religious practice but he was persuaded.

But cf. the young Wesley’s letter to his mother, Jan. 25, 1727, reporting his successful effort to persuade Robin Griffiths to a more decisive Christian commitment. ‘He [i.e., Griffiths] turned exceedingly serious and kept something of that disposition ever since. Yesterday was a fortnight he died of a consumption. I saw him three days before he died, and on the Sunday following…preach[ed] his funeral sermon;’ cf. No. 136, ‘On Mourning for the Dead’, which Wesley preached Jan. 11, 1727.

What then? All that power of convincing speech, all that force of persuasion, if it was not joined with meekness and lowliness, with resignation and patient love, would no more qualify him for the fruition of God than a clear voice, or a fine complexion. Nay, it would rather procure him a hotter place in the everlasting burnings.

Isa. 33:14.

33. Secondly, ‘though I have the gift of prophecy’,

Especially among the Puritans, the ‘gift of prophecy’ had come to mean the gifts of preaching. Cf. William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (1613); also Henry Smith, Sermons (1657), p. 137: ‘prophesying doth signify preaching.’ See also, Wesley’s Notes on 1 Thess. 5:20: ‘For the Apostle here is not speaking of extraordinary gifts. Prophesying or preaching it seems is one means of grace and is put in this place for all the means of grace’ (cf. No. 121, ‘Prophets and Priests’, §6). Here, however, Wesley is following the older usage of foretelling and gnostic wisdom.

of foretelling those future events which no creature can foresee; and ‘though I understand all’ the ‘mysteries’ of nature, of providence, and of the Word of God; and ‘all knowledge’ of things divine or human that any mortal ever attained to; though I could explain the most mysterious passages of Daniel, of Ezekiel, and the Revelation; yet if I have not humility, gentleness, and resignation, I ‘am nothing’

1 Cor. 13:2.

in the sight of God.

03:302

A little before the conclusion of the late war in Flanders,

The so-called ‘War of the Austrian Succession’, 1740-48; the campaigns in Flanders ran from 1742 to 1745. Cf. Charles Grant Robertson, England Under the Hanoverians, pp. 91-94.

one who came from thence gave us a very strange relation. I knew not what judgment to form of this; but waited till John Haime

See his autobiography in AM (1780), III.207-17, 255-73, 307-13, for an account of the religious society Haime had organized among the soldiers; it mentions the Battle of Fontenoy (§39) but not Jonathan Pyrah. After his military discharge, Haime became one of Wesley’s trusted veterans.

should come over, of whose veracity I could no more doubt than of his understanding. The account he gave was this: ‘Jonathan Pyrah was a member of our Society in Flanders. I knew him some years, and knew him to be a man of unblameable character. One day he was summoned to appear before the Board of General Officers. One of them said: “What is this which we hear of you? We hear you are turned prophet, and that you foretell the downfall of the bloody House of Bourbon, and the haughty House of Austria. We should be glad if you were a real prophet, and if your prophecies came true. But what sign do you give to convince us that you are so, and that your predictions will come to pass?” He readily answered: “Gentlemen, I give you a sign. Tomorrow at twelve o’clock you shall have such a storm of thunder and lightning as you never had before since you came into Flanders. I give you a second sign: as little as any of you expect any such thing, as little appearance of it as there is now, you shall have a general engagement with the French within three days. I give you a third sign: I shall be ordered to advance in the first line. If I am a false prophet, I shall be shot dead at the very first discharge. But if I am a true prophet I shall only receive a musket ball in the calf of my left leg.” At twelve the next day there was such thunder and lightning as they never had before in Flanders. On the third day, contrary to all expectations, was the general battle of Fontenoy.

May 11, 1745, one of the most famous battles of the eighteenth century in terms of the classical patterns of military strategy and tactics—and a defeat for the Anglo-Allied armies; cf. Williams, The Whig Supremacy, 1714-1760, pp. 237-39; and Charles Grant Robertson, op. cit., 97-98.

He was ordered to advance in the first line. And at the very first discharge, he did receive a musket ball in the calf of his left leg.’

44. And yet all this profited him nothing, either for temporal or eternal happiness. When the war was over he returned to England; but the story was got before him: in consequence of 03:303which he was sent for by the Countess of St[air]s,

The Countess of Stair was Eleanor, daughter of the second Earl of Loudoun and widow of Viscount James Primrose. She is the heroine in Sir Walter Scott’s novel, ‘My Aunt Margaret’s Mirror’, in Chronicles of the Canongate (1827). Lord Stair (John Dalrymple, second Earl of Stair [1673-1747]) distinguished himself in the battles of Dettingen and Fontenoy; ‘his countess survived him by twelve years and remained till her death the most striking figure in Edinburgh society’ (DNB, loc. cit.). John Hampson, Memoirs of the Late Rev. John Wesley, II.142, refers to her and also spells the name Stairs as Wesley has done.

and several other persons of quality, who were desirous to receive so surprising an account from his own mouth. He could not bear so much honour. It quite turned his brain. In a little time he ran stark mad. And so he continues to this day, living still, as I apprehend, on Wibsey Moorside,

The text in both AM and SOSO here reads ‘Websey’; Wibsey is two miles south of Bradford and Wibsey Moorside about a mile farther south.

within a few miles of Leeds.

At the time of writing this sermon [i.e., 1784]. He is since dead [this footnote added in Sermons (1788), VII.250].

55. And what would it profit a man to ‘have all knowledge’, even that which is infinitely preferable to all other, the knowledge of the Holy Scripture? I knew a young man about twenty years ago who was so thoroughly acquainted with the Bible that if he was questioned concerning any Hebrew word in the Old or any Greek word in the New Testament, he would tell, after a little pause, not only how often the one or the other occurred in the Bible, but also what it meant in every place. His name was Thomas Walsh.

His Journal, written by himself, is extant [It was used by James Morgan for his Life and Death of Mr. Thomas Walsh (London, 1762). Wesley published extracts from this in Works (1772), Vol. XI; cf. Bibliog, No. 252].

Such a master of biblic knowledge I never saw before, and never expect to see again. Yet if with all his knowledge he had been void of love, if he had been proud, passionate, or impatient, he and all his knowledge would have perished together, as sure as ever he was born.

66. ‘And though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains.’

1 Cor. 13:2.

The faith which is able to do this cannot be the fruit of vain imagination, a mere madman’s dream, a system of opinions; but must be a real work of God. Otherwise it could not have such an effect. Yet if this faith does not work by love, if it does not produce universal holiness, if it does not bring forth lowliness, meekness, and resignation, it will profit me nothing. This is as certain a truth as any that is delivered in the whole 03:304oracles of God. All faith that is, that ever was, or ever can be, separate from tender benevolence to every child of man, friend or foe, Christian, Jew, heretic, or pagan; separate from gentleness to all men; separate from resignation in all events, and contentedness in all conditions—is not the faith of a Christian, and will stand us in no stead before the face of God.

77. Hear ye this, all you that are called Methodists. You of all men living are most concerned herein. You constantly speak of salvation by faith; and you are in the right for so doing. You maintain, one and all, that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law.

See Gal. 2:16; note this stress on faith alone as the foundation of Christian soteriology in a sermon in praise of ‘holy tempers’.

And you cannot do otherwise without giving up the Bible, and betraying your own souls. You insist upon it, that we are saved by faith; and undoubtedly so we are. But consider, meantime, that let us have ever so much faith, and be our faith ever so strong, it will never save us from hell unless it now save us from all unholy tempers; from pride, passion, impatience; from all arrogance of spirit, all haughtiness and overbearing; from wrath, anger, bitterness; from discontent, murmuring, fretfulness, peevishness. We are of all men most inexcusable, if having been so frequently guarded against that strong delusion we still, while we indulge any of these tempers, bless ourselves and dream we are in the way to heaven!

88. Fourthly, ‘although I give all my goods to feed the poor’,

Cf. 1 Cor. 13:3.

though I divide all my real and all my personal estate into small portions (so the original word properly signifies), and diligently bestow it on those who I have reason to believe are the most proper objects; yet if I am proud, passionate, or discontented; if I give way to any of these tempers; whatever good I may do to others, I do none to my own soul. O how pitiable a case is this! Who would not grieve that these beneficent men should lose all their labour!

Cf. No. 65, ‘The Duty of Reproving our Neighbour’, I.3 and n.

It is true, many of them have a reward in this world; if not before, yet after their death. They have costly and pompous funerals. They have marble monuments of the most exquisite workmanship. They have epitaphs, wrote in the most elegant strain, which extol their virtues to the skies.

There are few English churches from this period without a panoply of these elaborate monuments; overall, one gets the general impression that more of them date from the eighteenth than from any other century.

Perhaps they have 03:305yearly orations spoken over them, to transmit their memory to all generations. So have many founders of religious houses, of colleges, alms-houses, and most charitable institutions. And it is an allowed rule that none can exceed in the praise of the founder of his house, college, or hospital. But still what a poor reward is this! Will it add to their comfort or to their misery, suppose (which must be the case if they did not die in faith) that they are in the hands of the devil and his angels? What insults, what cutting reproaches would these occasion from their infernal companions! O that they were wise! That all those who are zealous of good works

Titus 2:14.

would put them in their proper place! Would not imagine they can supply the want of holy tempers,

Cf. Law, Serious Call, passim. For Wesley’s other uses of ‘holy tempers’, see below, III.12; and No. 92,‘On Zeal’, II.10; as well as his letter to James Clark, Sept. 18, 1756; to Dr. Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester, Nov. 26, 1762 (where he speaks of ‘right tempers’); and The Principles of a Methodist, §2 (Bibliog, No. 67, Vol. 9 of this edn.), where in his preface ‘To the Reader’, Wesley exhorts to a ‘right spirit’ in controversy; see also The Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained, §3 (Bibliog, No. 123, Vol. 9 of this edn.).

but take care that they may spring from them!

99. How exceeding strange must this sound in the ears of most of those who are, by the courtesy of England, called Christians! But stranger still is that assertion of the Apostle which comes in the last place: ‘Although I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.’

1 Cor. 13:3.

Although rather than deny the faith, rather than commit a known sin, or omit a known duty, I voluntarily submit to a cruel death—‘deliver up my body to be burned’—yet if I am under the power of pride, or anger, or fretfulness, ‘it profiteth me nothing.’

1010. Perhaps this may be illustrated by an example. We have a remarkable account in the Tracts of Dr. Geddes

Michael Geddes, LL.D. (1650?-1713), chaplain to the English business community in Lisbon, 1678-88; there is no record of his having been there in ‘the latter end of Queen Anne’s reign’ (cf. DNB). His criticism of the Portuguese Inquisition compelled his return to England, where he became chancellor of the diocese of Salisbury. Wesley read his Miscellaneous Tracts (1702-6) in Feb. 1731; they are full of indignant accounts of the cruelties of the Inquisition. Wesley’s story as told here has been adapted from Tracts, No. 5, I.409-10. Cf. also No. 73, ‘Of Hell’, III.1 and n.; and The Doctrine of Original Sin, Pt. I, II.8.

(a civilian who was envoy from Queen Anne to the court of Portugal in the latter end of her reign). He was present at one of those autos-de-fé

Orig., ‘auto de fes’.

(acts of faith) wherein the Roman inquisitors burn heretics alive. 03:306One of the persons who was then brought out for execution, having been confined in the dungeons of the Inquisition, had not seen the sun for many years. It proved a bright, sunshiny day. Looking up, he cried out in surprise, ‘O how can anyone who sees that glorious luminary worship any but the God that made it!’

Cf. No. 28, ‘Sermon on the Mount, VIII’, §5.

A friar standing by ordered them to run an iron gag through his lips, that he might speak no more. Now what did that poor man feel within when this order was executed? If he said in his heart, though he could not utter it with his lips, ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do;’

Luke 23:34.

undoubtedly the angels of God were ready to carry his soul into Abraham’s bosom.

See Luke 16:22.

But if instead of this he cherished the resentment in his heart which he could not express with his tongue, although his body was consumed by the flames, I will not say his soul went into paradise.

1111. The sum of all that has been observed is this: whatever I speak, whatever I know, whatever I believe, whatever I do, whatever I suffer; if I have not the faith that worketh by love,

See Gal. 5:6; cf. above, No. 2, The Almost Christian, II.6 and n.

that produces love to God and all mankind, I am not in the narrow way which leadeth to life, but in the broad road that leadeth to destruction.

See Matt. 7:13-14.

In other words: whatever eloquence I have, whether natural or supernatural knowledge; whatever faith I have received from God; whatever works I do, whether of piety or mercy; whatever sufferings I undergo for conscience’ sake, even though I resist unto blood—all these things put together, however applauded of men, will avail nothing before God unless I am meek and lowly in heart,

Matt. 11:29.

and can say in all things, ‘Not as I will, but as thou wilt.’

Matt. 26:39.

1212. We conclude from the whole (and it can never be too much inculcated, because all the world votes on the other side), that true religion, in the very essence of it, is nothing short of holy tempers. Consequently all other religion, whatever name it bears, whether pagan, Mahometan, Jewish, or Christian; and whether popish or Protestant, Lutheran or Reformed, without these is lighter than vanity

Ps. 62:9.

itself.

03:307

1313. Let every man therefore that has a soul to be saved see that he secure this one point. With all his eloquence, his knowledge, his faith, works, and sufferings, let him hold fast this ‘one thing needful’.

Luke 10:42.

He that through the power of faith endureth to the end in

See Matt. 10:22.

humble, gentle, patient love; he, and he alone, shall, through the merits of Christ, ‘inherit the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world’.

Matt. 25:34.

London, October 15, 1784

Place and date as in AM.

How to Cite This Entry

, “” in , last modified February 25, 2024, https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon091.

Bibliography:

, “.” In , edited by . , 2024. Entry published February 25, 2024. https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon091.

About this Entry

Entry Title: Sermon 91: On Charity

Copyright and License for Reuse

Show full citation information...