To William Law Date: LONDON, May 20, 1738. REVEREND SIR, I sincerely thank you for a favor I did not expect, and presume to trouble you once more. How I have preached all my life; how qualified or unqualified I was to correct a translation of Kempis, and translate a preface to it; whether I have now, or how long I have had, a living faith; and whether I am for separating the doctrine of the Cross from it; what your state or sentiments are; and whether Peter Bhler spoke truth in what he said when two beside me were. present are circumstances on which the main question does not turn, which is this and no other: Whether you ever advised me, or directed me to books that did advise, to seek first a living faith in the blood of Christ You appeal to three facts to prove you did: (1) That you put Theologia Germanica into my hands. (2) That you published an answer to The Plain Account of the Sacrament. And (3) That you are governed through all you have writ and done by these two fundamental maxims of our Lord 'Without Me ye can do nothing,' and 'If any man will come after Me, let him take up his cross and follow Me.' The facts I allow, but not the consequence. In Theologia Germanica I remember something of Christ our Pattern, but nothing express of Christ our Atonement. The answer to The Plain Account I believe to be an excellent book, but not to affect the question. Those two maxims may imply but do not express that third 'He is our propitiation through faith in His blood.' 'But how are you chargeable with my not having had this faith' If, as you intimate, you discerned my spirit, thus: (1) You did not tell me plainly I had it not. (2) You never once advised me to seek or pray for it. (3) You gave me advices proper only for one who had it already; and (4) advices which led me farther from it, the closer I adhered to them. (5) You recommended books to me which had no tendency to plant this faith, but a direct one to destroy good works.

However, 'let the fault be divided between you and Kempis.' No: if I understood Kempis wrong, it was your part, who discerned my spirit under that mistake, to have explained him and set me right. I ask pardon, sir, if I had said anything disrespectful. I am, reverend sir, Your most obedient servant. William Law replies 8 May 1738. SIR, Without the smallest degree of disregard either to you or your letter, I had not sent you an answer to it had it not been for the part of it where you say there were two persons present with Mr. Bhler and myself. There were two persons present, but not one witness; for we spoke only Latin, and they both declared to me they understood not Latin. I mentioned not your qualification for translating Kempis with the least intention to reproach either your design or performance, but only to show you that it deeply engaged your attention to those very truths which you suppose you were a stranger to through my conversation. If you remember the Theologia Germunica so imperfectly as only to remember 'something of Christ our Pattern, but nothing express of Christ our Atonement,' it is no wonder that you can remember....

I put that author into your hands, not because he is fit for the first learners of the rudiments of Christianity who are to be prepared for baptism, but because you were a clergyman that had made profession of divinity, had read as you said with much approbation and benefit the two practical discourses and many other good books, and because you seemed to me to be of a very inquisitive nature and much inclined to meditation. In this view nothing could be more reasonable than that book, which most deeply, excellently, and fully contains the whole system of Christian faith and practice, and is an excellent guide against all mistakes both in faith and works. What that book has not taught you I am content that you should not have learnt from me. You say the two maxims I mention may imply but do not express, 'He is our propitiation, through faith in His blood.' Is not this, therefore, a mere contest about words and expressions When I refer you to these two maxims or texts of Scripture, will you confine me to them alone Does not my quoting them necessarily refer to every part of Scripture of the same import When Christ says, 'Without Me ye can do nothing'; when the Apostle says, 'There is no other name given under heaven by which we can be saved'; when he says, 'We are sanctified through faith in His blood' and 'through faith in Him,' is there anything here but a difference of words, or one and the same thing imperfectly and only in part expressed I mentioned not the answer to the Plain Account, c., as a proof of the manner of my conversation with you, but of my faith in Christ as the Atonement for us by His blood at this time, which is what you directly questioned and called upon me for.

You number up all the parts of my letter, which are only speaking to the same parts in yours, as things entirely beside the point. If they are not to the point in mine, how came they to have a place in yours, which was written under divine direction Why did you give me occasion to speak of things that needed nothing to be said of them Had you said but one thing, I would have spoke to nothing else. In your first letter I was blamed for not calling you to such a faith in Christ as strips us naked of our own works, our own righteousness; for not teaching you this doctrine 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all thy heart, and nothing shall be impossible to thee.' This is the faith in Christ which all Mystical spiritual books are full of. What you have heard from me on this head of faith in our former conversations would make a volume; but because I appealed to a text of Scripture, 'Without Me ye can do nothing,' you have quitted this faith. And now you say this, and no other, is the question: whether I ever advised you 'to seek first a living faith in the blood of Christ.' But, sir, this is not the main question of your first letter; had you had only this question to have proposed, you would not have written to me at all. But if I tell you that you conceived a dislike to me, and wanted to let me know that a man of God had shown you the poverty and misery of my state if I tell you that this was the main intent of your letter, you know that I tell you the truth. To come to your, c. c .... But this matter, it seems, now is of no importance.

I was a stranger to him, received him friendly, listened to him humbly, consented to his instructing me; I said not one single syllable of any doctrine of religion, Mystical or not. We presently parted, in all appearance friendly. He passes a sentence of condemnation upon me as in a poor miserable state, which lay open to his eyes. This man of God told nothing of this to myself, but goes away to another man of God, and invents and tells things as false as if he had charged me with picking his pocket; and, what is well to be observed, this judgment passed upon me is founded upon those very things which are thus false and wholly his own invention. This other man of God confirms this sentence as spoken by one that he knew had the Spirit of God, and in obedience to a divine call is obliged to let me know.... Who made me your teacher or can make me answerable for any defects in your knowledge You sought my acquaintance, you came to me as you pleased, and on what occasion you pleased, and to say to me what you pleased. If it was my business to put this question to you, if you have a right to charge me with guilt for the neglect of it, may you not much more reasonably accuse them who are authoritatively charged with you Did the Church in which you are educated put this question to you did the Bishop that ordained you either deacon or priest do this for you did the Bishop that sent you into Georgia require this of you Pray, sir, be at peace with me. To a Friend 9 LONDON, May 24, 1738. Oh why is it that so great, so wise, so holy a God will use such an instrument as me! Lord, 'let the dead bury their dead'! But wilt Thou send the dead to raise the dead Yea, Thou sendest whom Thou wilt send, and shewest mercy by whom Thou wilt show mercy! Amen! Be it, then, according to Thy will! If Thou speak the word, Judas shall cast out devils.

I feel what you say (though not enough), for I am under the same condemnation. I see that the whole law of God is holy, just, and good. I know every thought, every temper of my soul ought to bear God's image and superscription. But how am I fallen from the glory of God! I feel that 'I am sold under sin.' I know that I, too, deserve nothing but wrath, being full of all abominations, and having no good thing in me to atone for them or to remove the wrath of God. All my works, my righteousness, my prayers need an atonement for themselves. So that my mouth is stopped. I have nothing to plead. God is holy; I am unholy. God is a consuming fire; I am altogether a sinner, meet to be consumed. Yet I hear a voice (and is it not the voice of God ) saying, ' Believe, and thou shalt be saved. He that believeth is passed from death unto Fife. God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' Oh let no one deceive us by vain words, as if we had already attained this faith ! By its fruits we shall know. Do we already feel ' peace with God' and ' joy in the Holy Ghost' Does ' His Spirit bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God' Alas! with mine He does not. Nor, I fear, with yours. O Thou Savior of men, save us from trusting in anything but Thee! Draw us after Thee! Let us be emptied of ourselves, and then fill us with all peace and joy in believing; and let nothing separate us from Thy love, in time or in eternity!