A farther APPEAL To MEN of REASON and RELIGION. (continued 2)

9. I conceive, not only that your Lordship has proved nothing hitherto, not one point that has any relation to the question: but that, strictly speaking, you have not attempted to prove any thing, having taken for granted whatever came in your way. In the same manner you proceed, “The apostle goes on, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. This passage, as it is connected with the preceding one, relates to the general adoption of Christians, or their becoming the sons of God instead of the Jews.”—“This passage relates”—How is that proved? By its connexion with the preceding? In no wise, unless it be good arguing to prove Ignotum per ignotius. It has not yet been proved, that the preceeding passage itself has any relation to this matter.

Your Lordship adds, “But what was the ground of this preference that was given to Christians? It was plainly the (miraculous) gifts of the Spirit, which they had, and which the Jews had not.” This preference given to Christians, was just before exprest by their becoming the sons of God instead of the Jews. Were the gifts of the Spirit then the ground of this preference? The ground of their becoming the sons of God? What an assertion is this! And how little is it mended, though I allow, that “these miraculous gifts of the Spirit, were a testimony that God acknowledged the Christians to be his people and not the Jews: (since the Christians who worked miracles, did it not by the works of the law, but by the hearing of faith?”)

Your Lordship concludes, “From these passages of St. Paul, compared together, it clearly follows, that the fore-mentioned testimony of the Spirit, was the public testimony of miraculous gifts—and, consequently, the witness of the Spirit that we are the children of God, cannot possibly be applied, to the private testimony of the Spirit given to our own consciences, as is pretended by modern enthusiasts.” Page 20.

If your conclusion, my Lord, will stand without the premisses it may: but that it has no manner of connection with them, I trust does partly, and will more fully appear, when we view the whole passage to which you refer. And I believe that passage, with very little comment, will prove, in direct opposition to that conclusion, that the testimony of the Spirit there mentioned, is not the public testimony of miraculous gifts, but must be applied to the private testimony of the Spirit, given to our own consciences.

10. St. Paul begins the 8th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, with the great privilege of every Christian believer, (whether Jew or Gentile before) There is now no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus, engrafted into him by faith, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For now every one of them may truly say, The law (or power) of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (given unto me for his sake) hath made me free from the law (or power) of sin and death. For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did; when he condemned, (crucified, put to death, destroyed) sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh, mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. Verse 1‒5.

Is it not evident, that the apostle is here describing a true Christian, a holy believer? In opposition, not particularly to a Jew, much less to the Jewish law, but to every unholy man, to all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who walk after the flesh? He goes on

For, to be carnally-minded is death; but to be spiritually-minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God; neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh, cannot please God. Verses 6, 7, 8.

The opposition between a holy and unholy man, is still glaring and undeniable. But can any man discern, the least glimmering of opposition, between the Christian and the Jewish Law.

The apostle goes on, But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. But if Christ be in you, the body is dead, because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit which dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Verse 9‒14.

Is there one word here, is there any the least intimation of miraculous gifts, or of the Jewish law?

It follows, For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again, to fear (such as all sinners have, when they at first stirred up to seek God, and begin to serve him from a slavish fear of punishment) But ye have received the spirit of adoption (of free love) whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself (which God hath sent forth into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father,) beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. Verse 15, 16.

I am now willing to leave it, without farther comment, to the judgment of every impartial reader, whether it does not appear from the whole scope and tenor of the text and context taken together, that this passage does not refer to the Jewish law, nor to the public testimony of miracles: neither of which can be dragged in, without putting the utmost force on the natural meaning of the words. And if so, it will follow, that this witness of the Spirit is the private testimony given to our own consciences: which, consequently, all sober Christians may claim, without any danger of enthusiasm.

11. “But I go on (says your Lordship, page 21.) to the consideration of the other passages in the same chapter, relating to our praying by the Spirit, namely at verse 26 and 27, which runs thus, Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God.”

Here is a circumstance highly needful to be observed, before we enter upon this question. Your Lordship undertakes to fix the meaning of an expression used by St. Paul, in the 14th chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. And in order thereto, you laboriously explain part of the 8th chapter of the Romans. My Lord, how is this? Will it be said, Why this is often alledged to prove the wrong sense of that scripture? I conceive, this will not salve the matter at all. Your Lordship had before laid down a particular method, as the only sure one whereby to distinguish what scriptures belong to all Christians, and what do not. This method is, the considering the occasion and scope of those passages, by comparing the text and context together. You then propose, by the use of this method, to shew, that several texts have been misapplied by Enthusiasts. One of these is the 15th verse of the 14th chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians. And to shew, that Enthusiasts have misapplied this, you comment on the 8th chapter to the Romans!

However, let us weigh the comment itself. The material part of it begins thus: (page 22.) “Now he adds another proof of the truth of Christianity: Likewise the Spirit helpeth our infirmities (or our distresses, for ♦ἀσθενείαις signifies both.” I doubt that: I require authority for it.) “And then he mentions, in what instances he does so, viz. In prayers to God about afflictions”—(In nothing else, my Lord? Did he help their infirmities, in no other instance than this?) “We know not, says he, what we should pray for as we ought. That is, whether it be best for us to bear afflictions, or to be delivered from them. But the Spirit, OR the gift of the Spirit, instructs us how to pray in a manner agreeable to the will of God.” The Spirit, OR the gift of the Spirit! What marvellous reasoning is this? If these “are often put for each other,” what then? How is that evinced to be the case here?

12. “The apostle goes on, The Spirit itself (page 23) maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered: That is, the spiritual or inspired person prayed in that capacity for the whole assembly.” “That is!” Nay, that is again the very point to be proved, else we get not one step farther.

“The apostle goes on thus, verse 27. And he that (page 24) searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, (that is, of the spiritual or inspired person) because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God. That is, God knows the intention of the spiritual person, who has the gift of prayer, which he uses for the benefit of the whole assembly; he, I say, leaves it entirely to God, whether it be best that they should suffer afflictions, or be delivered from them.” Page 25.

My Lord, this is more astonishing than all the rest! I was expecting all along in reading the preceding pages (and so I suppose, was every thinking reader) when your Lordship would mention, that the person miraculously inspired for that intent, and praying κατὰ Θεὸν either for the support or deliverance of the people, should have the very petition which he asked of him. Whereas you intended no such thing! But shut up the whole with that lame and impotent conclusion, “He leaves it to God, whether it be best they should suffer afflictions, or be delivered from them.”

Had he then that miraculous gift of God, that he might do what any common Christian might have done without it? Why, any person in the congregation might have prayed thus: nay, could not pray otherwise, if he had the ordinary grace of God: “Leaving it to God, whether he should suffer afflictions still, or be delivered from them.” Was it only in the apostolical age, that “the Spirit instructed Christians thus to pray?” Cannot a man pray thus, either for himself or others, unless he has the miraculous gift of prayer!—So, according to your Lordship’s judgment, “To pray in such a manner, as in the event to leave the continuance of our sufferings, or our deliverance from them, with a due submission, to the good pleasure of God,” is one of those “extraordinary operations of the Spirit,” which none now pretend to but “modern enthusiasts!”

I beseech your Lordship to consider. Can you cooly maintain, that “the praying with a due submission to the will of God,” even in heavy affliction, is a miraculous gift? An extraordinary operation of the Holy Ghost? Is this peculiar to the primitive times? Is it what none but enthusiasts now pretend to? If not, then your Lordship’s own account of praying by the Spirit indisputably proves, that this is one of the ordinary privileges of all Christians, to the end of the world.

13. “I go on (your Lordship adds) to another passage of scripture, that has been entirely (page 27.) misapplied by modern enthusiasts. 1 Corinthians ii. 4, 5. And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in the demonstration of the spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.” Page 29.

“It is only necessary to evince, that by the demonstration of the spirit and power is meant the demonstration of the truth of Christianity, that arises from the prophesies of the Old Testament, and the miracles of Christ and his apostles.” Yes, it is necessary farther to evince, that these words have no other meaning. But first, How will you evince, that they bear this? In order thereto, your Lordship argues thus:

“The former seems to be the demonstration of the Spirit, with regard to the prophetical testimonies of him.—And the demonstration of power, must signify the power of God, exerted in miracles.” (page 30.) “Must;” Why so? That δύναμις often signifies miraculous power, is allowed—But what follows? That it must mean so in this place? That still remains to be proved.

Indeed your Lordship says, this “appears from the following verse, in which is assigned the reason for using this method of proving Christianity to be true, viz. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God. By the power of God therefore must necessarily be understood, the miracles performed by Christ and his apostles.” By the illative particle, therefore, this proposition should be an inference from some other: but what other I cannot yet discern. So that, for the present, I can only look upon it, as a fresh instance of begging the question.

“He goes on in the 7th, 10th and following verses, to explain this demonstration of the spirit and of power.” But he does not say one syllable therein, either of the ancient prophecies, or of miracles. Nor will it be easily proved, that he speaks either of one or the other, from the beginning of the chapter to the end.

After transcribing the 13th verse, which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, your Lordship adds, “From which last passage it appears, that the words which the Holy Ghost is said to teach, must be the prophetical revelations of the Old Testament, which were discovered to the apostles by the same Spirit.” I cannot apprehend, how this appears. I cannot as yet see any connection at all between the premisses and the conclusion.

Upon the whole, I desire any calm and serious man, to read over this whole chapter; and then he will easily judge, what is the natural meaning of the words in question: and whether (although it be allowed, that they were peculiarly fulfilled in the apostles, yet) they do not manifestly belong, in a lower sense, to every true minister of Christ? For what can be more undeniable than this, that our preaching also is vain, unless it be attended with the power of that Spirit, who alone pierceth the heart? And that your hearing is vain, unless the same power be present to heal your soul, and to give you a faith which standeth not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God?

14. “Another passage that (your Lordship thinks) has been misapplied by enthusiasts, but was really peculiar to the times of the apostles, is 1 John ii. 20. and 27. (page 35.) Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.――But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you: And ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” “Here the apostle arms the true Christians ♦against seducers, by an argument drawn from the unction from the Holy One, that was in or rather among them: that is, from the immediate inspiration of some of their teachers.” page 37.

Here it rests upon your lordship, to prove (as well as affirm) 1. That ἐν should be translated among: 2. That this unction from the Holy One means, “The inspiration of some of their teachers.”

The latter your lordship attempts to prove thus: “The inspired teachers of old were set apart for that office, by an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost: Therefore page 38. ♦The unction from the Holy One here, means such an effusion.” I deny the consequence; so the question is still to be proved.

Your lordship’s second argument is drawn from the 26th verse of the 14th chapter of St. John’s gospel,

Proposed in form, it will stand thus:

“If those words, He shall teach you all things, relate only to a miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost, then these words, The same anointing teacheth you of all things, relate to the miraculous gift:

“But those words relate only to a miraculous gift:

“Therefore these relate to the same.”

I conceive, it will not be very easy to make good the consequence in the first proposition. But I deny the minor also: the contradictory whereto, I trust, has appeared to be true.

I grant indeed, that these words were more eminently fulfilled, in the age of the apostles. But this is altogether consistent with their belonging in a lower sense, to all Christians in all ages: Seeing they have all need of an unction from the Holy One, a supernatural assistance from the Holy Ghost, that they may know in the due use of all proper means, all things needful for their souls health. Therefore it is no enthusiasm, to teach that the unction from the Holy One, belongs to all Christians in all ages.

15. There is one topic of your lordship’s yet untouched; that is authority: One you have very frequently made use of, and wherein, probably, the generality of readers suppose your lordship’s great strength lies. And indeed when your lordship first mentioned, (page 11.) “The general sense of the primitive church,” I presumed you would have produced so numerous authorities, that I should not easily be able to consult them all. But I soon found my mistake; your lordship naming only Chrysostom, Jerome, Origen, and Athanasius.

However, though these four can no more be termed the primitive church, than the church universal, yet I consent to abide by their suffrage. Nay, I will go a step farther still. If any two of these affirm, that those seven texts belong only to the apostolical age, and not to the Christians of succeeding times, I will give up the whole cause.

But let it be observed: If they should affirm, that these primarily belong to the ♦Christians of the apostolical age, that does not prove the point, because they may in a secondary sense belong to others notwithstanding: Nor does any of them speak home to the question, unless he maintain in express terms, that these texts refer only to the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, and not at all to the state of ordinary Christians.

16. Concerning those three texts, John xiv. verse 16. and the 26. and John xvi. verse 13. “I could easily add (says your lordship,¹) the authorities of Chrysostom and the other antient commentators.” St. Chrysostom’s authority I will consider now, and that of the others, when they are produced.

¹ Page 15.

It is granted, that he interprets not only John xvi. 13. but also both the passages in the 14th chapter, as primarily belonging to the apostles. Yet part of his comment on the 26th verse, is as follows.

“Such is that grace (of the Comforter) that if it finds sadness it takes it away; if evil desire, it consumes it. It casts out fear, and suffers him that receives it to be a man no longer, but translates him, as it were, into heaven. Hence none of them counted any thing his own, but continued in prayer, with gladness and singleness of heart. For this chiefly is there need of the Holy Ghost. For the fruit of the Spirit is joy, peace, faith, meekness. Indeed spiritual men often grieve; but that grief is sweeter than joy. For whatever is of the Spirit, is the greatest gain, as whatever is of the world, is the greatest loss. Let us therefore in keeping the commandments” (according to our Lord’s exhortation, verse 15.) “secure the unconquerable assistance of the Spirit, and we shall be nothing inferior to angels.”

St. Chrysostom here, after he had shewn, that the promise of the Comforter primarily belonged to the apostles: And who ever questioned it? undeniably teaches, That in a secondary sense, it belongs to all Christians: To all spiritual men, all who keep the commandments. I appeal therefore to all mankind, whether his authority, touching the promise of our Lord in those texts, does not overthrow the proposition it was cited to prove?

Although your lordship names no other author here, yet page 42. you say, “The assigned sense of these passages was confirmed by the authority of Origen.” It is needful therefore to add, what occurs in his works, with regard to the present question.

He occasionally mentions this promise of our Lord, in four several places. But it is in one only that he speaks pertinently to the point in hand, (Volume II. page 403. Edition Benedictine.) where his words are these:

When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, and he will teach you all things. “The sum of all good things consists in this, that a man be found worthy to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, nothing will be accounted perfect in him, who hath not the Holy Spirit.”

Do these words confirm that “sense of those passages that your lordship had assigned?” Rather do they not utterly overturn it? And prove, (as above) that although this promise of our Lord, primarily belongs to the apostles, yet in the secondary sense, it belongs (according to Origen’s judgment) to all Christians in all ages?

17. The fourth text mentioned as belonging to the first Christians only, is Romans viii. 15, 16: and page 26. it is said, “This interpretation is confirmed by the authority of the most eminent fathers.” The reader is particularly referred to Origen and Jerom in locum. But here seems to be a mistake of the name. Jerom in locum should mean, Jerom upon the place, upon Romans viii. 15, 16. But I cannot perceive that there is one word upon that place, in all St. Jerom’s works.

Nor indeed has Origen commented upon it any more than Jerom. But he occasionally mentions it in these words:

“He is a babe who is fed with milk—but if he seeks the things that are above—without doubt he will be of the number of those, who receive not the Spirit of bondage again unto fear, but the spirit of adoption, through whom they cry, Abba Father.” Volume I. page 79.

Again, “The fulness of time is come—when they who are willing, receive the adoption, as Paul teaches in these words, Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father! And it is written in the gospel according to St. John, To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name.” Volume I. page 231, 232.

Yet again, “Every one that is born of God, and doth not commit sin, by his very actions saith, Our Father which art in heaven, the Spirit itself bearing witness with their spirit, that they are the children of God.” ibid.

According to Origen therefore, this testimony of the Spirit, is not any publick testimony by miracles, peculiar to the first times, but an inward testimony, belonging in common to all that are born of God. And consequently the authority of Origen does not “confirm that interpretation” neither; but absolutely destroys it.

18. The last authority your Lordship appeals to on this text is, “that of the great John Chrysostom, who reckons the testimony of the spirit of adoption by which we cry Abba, Father! among the miraculous gifts of the Spirit.” “I rather chuse (your Lordship adds, page 26.) to refer you to the words of St. Chrysostom, than to transcribe them here, as having almost translated them in the present account of the testimony of the Spirit.”

However, I believe it will not be labour lost to transcribe a few of those words.

It is his comment on the 14th verse, that he first mentions, St. Paul’s comparison between a Jew and a Christian. How fairly your Lordship has represented this, let every reader judge.

As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.—“Whereas the same title had been given of old to the Jews also,—he shews in the sequel, how great a difference there is, between that honour and this. For though, says he, the titles are the same, yet the things are not. And he plainly proves it, by comparing both what they had received, and what they looked for. And first he shews what they had received, viz. A Spirit of bondage. Therefore he adds, Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again unto fear: but ye have received the Spirit of adoption. What means the spirit of fear?—*Observe their whole life, and you will know clearly. For punishments were at their heels, and much fear was on every side, and before their face.—But with us it is not so. For our mind and conscience are cleansed, so that we do all things well, not for fear of present punishment, but through our love of God, and an habit of virtue. They therefore, though they were called sons, yet were as slaves; but we, being made free, have received the adoption, and look not for a land of milk and honey, but for heaven.”

*“He brings also another proof, that we have the Spirit of adoption, by which, says he, we cry, Abba, Father.—This is the first word we utter μετὰ τὰς θαυμαστάς ὠδῖνας ἐκείνας, καὶ τὸν ξένον παράδοξον λοχευμάτων νόμον: after those amazing throes (or birth-pangs) and that strange and wonderful manner of bringing forth.”

“He brings yet another proof of the superiority of those who had this Spirit of adoption. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. I prove this, says he, not only from the voice itself, but also from the cause whence that voice proceeds. For the Spirit suggests the words while we thus speak, which he hath elsewhere exprest more plainly, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father! But what is, The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit? He means, the paraclete by the gift given unto us.” (But that this was an extraordinary gift, we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after) *“And when the Spirit beareth witness, what doubt is left? If a man or an angel spake, some might doubt. But when the Most High beareth witness to us, who can doubt any longer?”

Now let any reasonable man judge how far your Lordship has “translated the words of St. Chrysostom? And whether he reckons the testimony of the Spirit among the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost?” Or among those ordinary gifts of the Spirit of Christ, which if a man have not, he is none of his?

19. The fifth text your Lordship quotes, as describing a miraculous gift of the Spirit, is 1 Corinthians xiv. 15. To prove which, you comment on the 8th chapter to the Romans, particularly the 26th verse: and here again it is said, “That the interpretation assigned, is confirmed by several of the most eminent fathers, more especially the great John Chrysostom, as well as by Origen and Jerome upon the place.”

I cannot find St. Jerome to have writ one line upon the place. And it is obvious, that St. Chrysostom supposes, the whole context from the 17th to the 25th verse, to relate to all Christians in all ages. How this can be said to “confirm the interpretation assigned,” I cannot conjecture. Nay, it is remarkable, that he expounds the former part of the 26th verse, as describing the ordinary privilege of all Christians. Thus far, therefore, he does not confirm, but overthrow “the interpretation before assigned.” But in the middle of the verse he breaks off, and expounds the latter part, as describing one of the miraculous gifts.

Yet I must do the justice to this venerable man to observe, he does not suppose that a miraculous gift was given, only that the inspired might do what any ordinary Christian might have done without it. (This interpretation, even of the latter part of the verse, he does in no wise confirm.) But that he might ask in every particular circumstance, the determinate thing which it was the will of God to give.

20. The third father by whom it is said this interpretation is confirmed is Origen. The first passage of his, which relates to Romans viii. 26. runs thus: (volume I. page 199.)

“Paul perceiving how far he was, after all these things, from knowing to pray for what he ought, as he ought,” says, We know not what we should pray for as we ought. But he adds, whence, what is wanting may be had by one who indeed does not know, but labours to be found worthy of having the defect supplied. For he says Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities. “For we know not what we should pray for as we ought. But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the spirit; because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God. The Spirit which crieth Abba, Father, in the hearts of the saints, knowing well our groanings in this tabernacle, maketh intercession for us to God, with groanings which cannot be uttered. To the same effect is that scripture, 1 Corinthians xiv. 15. I will pray with the Spirit, I will pray with the understanding also. For our understanding (or mind ♦ὁ νοῦς) cannot pray, if the Spirit do not pray before it, and the understanding, as it were, listen to it.”

*Again (Volume II. page 146.) “I would know, how the saints cry to God without a voice. The apostle shews, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father! And he adds, the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. And again, he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God. Thus therefore, the Spirit making intercession for us with God, the cry of the saints is heard without a voice.”

Once more in his Homily on Joshua, (volume II. page 419.)

“Jesus, our Lord, doth not forsake us; but although when we would pray, we know not what to pray for as we ought, yet the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now the Lord is that Spirit: The Spirit assists our prayers, and offers them to God with groanings which we cannot express in words.”

I believe all rational men will observe from hence, that Origen is so far from confirming, that he quite overturns your Lordship’s interpretation of the 16th as well as the 26th verse of this chapter: seeing, in his judgment, both that testimony of the spirit and this prayer belong to all Christians in all ages.

21. The sixth scripture which your Lordship has undertaken to shew, “relates only to the apostolical times,” is 1 Corinthians ii. 4, 5. And “this interpretation also, (it is said) is confirmed by the authority of Chrysostom, Origen, and other ancient writers.” (page 33) With those other “antient writers” I have no concern yet. St. Chrysostom so far confirms this interpretation, as to explain that whole phrase the demonstration of the spirit and of power, of “the power of the Spirit shewn by miracles.” But he says not one word, of any “proof of the Christian religion, arising from the types and prophecies of the old Testament.”

Origen has these words (Volume I. page 321.)

“Our word has a certain peculiar demonstration, more divine than the Grecian, logical demonstration. This the apostle terms, The demonstration of the Spirit and of power: of the Spirit because of the prophecies, sufficient to convince any one, especially of the things that relate to Christ; of power, because of the miraculous powers, some footsteps of which still remain.”

Hence we may doubtless infer, ♦that Origen judged this text to relate, in its primary sense to the apostles: but can we thence infer, that he did not judge it to belong, in a lower sense, to all true ministers of Christ?

Let us hear him speaking for himself in the same treatise (page 377.)

“And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. *Those who hear the word preached with power, are themselves filled with power,” (N. B. Not the power of working miracles) which they demonstrate both in their disposition, and in their life, and in their striving for the truth unto death. But some although they profess to believe, have not this power of God in them, but are empty thereof.”

(Did Origen then believe, that the power mentioned in this text, belonged only to the apostolical age?)

“See the force of the word, conquering believers by a persuasiveness attended with the power of God! I speak this to shew the meaning of him that said, And my speech and my preaching were not with the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. This divine saying means, that what is spoken is not sufficient of itself (although it be true and most worthy to be believed) to pierce a man’s soul, if there be not also a certain power from God given to the speaker, and grace bloom upon what is spoken, and this grace cannot be but from God.”

After observing, that this is the very passage which your Lordship mentions at the close of the other (but does not cite) I desire every unprejudiced person to judge, whether Origen does not clearly determine, that the power, spoken of in this text, is in some measure given to all true ministers in all ages?

22. The last scripture which your Lordship affirms “to be peculiar to the times of the apostles,” is that in the first epistle of St. John, concerning the unction of the Holy One.

To confirm this interpretation, we are referred to the authority of Origen and Chrysostom, on the parallel passages in St. John’s gospel,” (page 42.)

But it has appeared, that both these fathers suppose those passages to belong to all Christians. And consequently their authority (if these are parallel passages) stands full against this interpretation.

Your Lordship subjoins, “I shall here only add that of the great Athanasius, who (in his epistle to Serapion) interprets The unction from the Holy One, not merely of divine grace, but of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

Nay, it is enough, if he interprets it at all of ordinary grace, such as is common to all Christians.

And this your Lordship allows he does. But I cannot allow that he interprets it of any thing else. I cannot perceive, that he interprets it at all, “of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

His words are, “The Holy Spirit is called, and is, the unction and the seal. For John writes, The anointing which ye have received of him, abideth in you; and ye need not that any man should teach you, but as his anointing, his Spirit, teacheth you of all things. Again, it is written in the prophet Isaiah, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me. And Paul writes thus; In whom also ye were sealed. And again, Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. This anointing is the breath of the Son, so that he who hath the Spirit may say, We are the sweet-smelling savour of Christ. Because we are partakers of the Holy Spirit, we have the Son: And having the Son, we have the Spirit, crying in our hearts, Abba, Father.”

And so, in his oration against the Arians.

*“He sendeth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. His Son in us, invoking the Father, makes him to be called our Father. Certainly God cannot be called their Father, who have not the Son in their hearts.”

Is it not easy to be observed here, 1. That Athanasius makes that testimony of the Spirit common to all the children of God: 2. That he joins the anointing of the Holy One, with that seal of the Spirit wherewith all that persevere are sealed to the day of redemption: And 3. That he does not, throughout this passage, speak of the extraordinary gifts at all?

Therefore, upon the whole, the sense of the primitive church, so far as it can be gathered from the authors above cited, is, That “although some of the scriptures primarily refer, to those extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, which were given to the apostles, and a few other persons in the apostolical age: yet they refer also, in a secondary sense, to those ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit, which all the children of God do and will experience, even to the end of the world.”

23. What I mean by The ordinary operations of the Holy Ghost, I sum up in the words of a modern writer:

“Sanctification being opposed to our corruption, and answering fully to the latitude thereof, whatsoever of holiness and perfection is wanting in our nature, must be supplied by the Spirit of God. Wherefore being by nature we are totally void of all saving truth, and under an impossibility of knowing the will of God; this Spirit searcheth all things, yea, even the deep things of God, and revealeth them unto the sons of men, so that thereby the darkness of their understanding is expelled, and they are enlightened with the knowledge of God. The same Spirit which revealeth the object of faith generally to the universal church, doth also illuminate the understanding of such as believe, that they may receive the truth. For faith is the gift of God, not only in the object, but also in the act. And this gift is a gift of the Holy Ghost working within us—And as the increase of perfection, so the original of faith is from the Spirit of God, by an internal illumination of the soul.”

“The second part of the office of the Holy Ghost is, the renewing of man in all the parts and faculties of his soul. For our natural corruption consisting in an aversion of our wills, and a depravation of our affections, and inclination of them to the will of God, is wrought within us by the Spirit of God.”

“The third part of this office is, To lead, direct and govern us in our actions and conversations. If we live in the Spirit, quickened by his renovation, we must also walk in the Spirit, following his direction, led by his manuduction. We are also animated and acted by the Spirit of God, who giveth both to will and to do: And as many as are thus led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God.¹ Moreover, that this direction may prove more effectual, we are guided in our prayers by the same Spirit: according to the promise, I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplication. (Zechariah xii. 10.) Whereas then this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: and whereas we know not what we should pray for as we ought, the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered²: And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God.³ From which intercession” (made for all true Christians) “he hath the name of the Paraclete given him by Christ, who said, I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete.⁴ For if any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, saith St. John: Who maketh intercession for us, saith St. Paul, (Romans viii. 34.) And we have another Paraclete⁵, saith our Saviour: Which also maketh intercession for us⁶, saith St. Paul. A Paraclete then, in the notion of the scriptures, is an intercessor.”

¹ Romans viii. 14.

² Verse 26.

³ Verse 26.

⁴ John xiv. 16, 26.

⁵ John xiv. 16.

⁶ Romans viii. 27.

“It is also the office of the Holy Ghost, to assure us of the adoption of sons, to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God towards us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inheritance. The love of God shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but we have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father: the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.¹”

¹ Verses 15, 16.

“As therefore we are born again by the Spirit, and receive from him our regeneration, so we are also by the same Spirit assured of our adoption. Because being sons we are also heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, by the same Spirit we have the pledge, or rather the earnest of our inheritance. For he which establisheth us in Christ, and hath anointed us is God; who hath also sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of his Spirit in our hearts: So that we are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance. The Spirit of God, as given unto us in this life, is to be looked upon as an earnest, being part of that reward which is promised, and, upon performance of the covenant which God hath made with us, certainly to be received.”

Your Lordship observed, that “the interpretation of those passages, which relate to the Unction from the Holy One, depends on the sense of those other passages of holy scripture, particularly, those in St. John’s gospel.” Now if so, then these words fix the sense of six out of the seven texts in question: and every one of them, in the judgment of this writer, describes the ordinary gifts bestowed on all Christians.

It now rests with your Lordship, to take your choice; either to condemn or to acquit both. Either your Lordship must condemn Bishop Pearson for an enthusiast, (a man no ways inferior to Bishop Chrysostom:) or you must acquit me: for I have his express authority on my side, concerning every text which I affirm to belong to all Christians.

24. But I have greater authority than his, and such as I reverence, only less than that of the oracles of God. I mean, that of our own church. I shall close this head, by setting down what occurs in her authentic records, concerning either our receiving the Holy Ghost, or his ordinary operations in all true Christians.

In her daily service, she teaches us all to beseech God, to grant us his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him which we do at this present, and that the rest of our life may be pure and holy: To pray for our Sovereign Lord the King, that God would replenish him with the grace of his Holy Spirit; for all the Royal Family, that they may be endued with his Holy Spirit, and enriched with his heavenly grace: for all the clergy and people, that he would send down upon them the healthful Spirit of his grace: for the Catholick Church, that it may be guided and governed by his good Spirit: and for all therein who at any time make their common supplication unto him, that the fellowship or communication of the Holy Ghost may be with them all evermore.

Her collects are full of petitions to the same effect: “Grant that we may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit.¹――Grant that in all our sufferings here, for the testimony of thy truth, we may by faith behold the glory that shall be revealed, and being filled with the Holy Ghost, may love and bless our persecutors.² Send thy Holy Ghost and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity.³ O Lord, from whom all good things do come, grant to us thy humble servants, that by thy holy inspiration we may think those things that are good, and by thy merciful guidance may perform the same.⁴ Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort.⁵ (N. B. The church here teaches all Christians to claim the Comforter, in virtue of the promise made John xiv.) Grant us, Lord, we beseech thee, the Spirit, to think and do always such things as be rightful.⁶ O God, forasmuch as without thee, we are not able to please thee, merciful grant that thy Holy Spirit, may in all things direct and rule our hearts.⁷ Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name.⁸”

¹ Collect for Christmas-Day.

² St. Stephen’s Day.

³ Quinquagesima Sunday.

⁴ 5th Sunday after Easter.

⁵ Sunday after Ascension Day.

⁶ 9th Sunday after Trinity.

⁷ 19th Sunday after Trinity.

⁸ Communion Office.

“Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant (or this person) that he may be born again.—Give thy Holy Spirit to these persons (N. B. already baptized) that they may continue thy servants.”

“Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these persons by water and the Holy Ghost—Strengthen them with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them the manifold gifts of thy grace.” Office of Confirmation.

From these passages it may sufficiently appear, for what purposes every Christian, according to the doctrine of the church of England, does now receive the Holy Ghost. But this will be still more clear from those that follow: wherein the reader may likewise observe, a plain, rational sense of God’s revealing himself to us, of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and of a believer’s feeling in himself the mighty working of the Spirit of Christ.

25. “God gave them of old grace to be his children, as he doth us now. But now, by the coming of our Saviour Christ, we have received more abundantly the Spirit of God in our hearts.” Homily on Faith. Part II.

“He died to destroy the rule of the devil in us, and he rose again to send down his Holy Spirit, to rule in our hearts.” Homily on the Resurrection.

“We have the Holy Spirit in our hearts, as a seal and pledge of our everlasting inheritance.” ibid.

“The Holy Ghost sat upon each of them, like as it had been cloven tongues of fire: to teach, that it is he which giveth eloquence and utterance in preaching the gospel; which engendereth a burning zeal towards God’s word, and giveth all men a tongue, yea, a fiery tongue.” (N. B. Whatever occurs in any of the journals, of God’s “giving me utterance,” or “enabling me to speak with power,” cannot therefore be quoted as enthusiasm, without wounding the church through my side) “So that if any man be a dumb Christian, not professing his faith openly, he giveth men occasion to doubt, least he have not the grace of the Holy Ghost within him.” Homily on Whitsunday. Part I.

“It is the office of the Holy Ghost to sanctify; which the more it is hid from our understanding” (i. e. the particular manner of his working) “the more it ought to move all men, to wonder at the secret and mighty workings of God’s Holy Spirit which is within us, for it is the Holy Ghost that doth quicken the minds of men, stirring up godly motions in their hearts. Neither doth he think it sufficient inwardly to work the new birth of man, unless he do also dwell and abide in him. Know ye not, saith St. Paul, that ye are the temple of God, and that his Spirit dwelleth in you? Know ye not that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you? Again he saith, Ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, For why? The Spirit of God dwelleth in you. To this agreeth St. John. The anointing which ye have received (he meaneth the Holy Ghost) abideth in you.¹ And St. Peter saith the same, The Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you. O what comfort is this to the heart of a true Christian, to think that the Holy Ghost dwelleth in him! If God be with us, as the apostle saith, who can be against us? He giveth patience and joyfulness of heart, in temptation and affliction, and is therefore worthily called the Comforter². He doth instruct the hearts of the simple, in the knowledge of God and his word; therefore he is justly termed The Spirit of truth³. And where the Holy Ghost doth instruct and teach, there is no delay at all in learning.” ibid.

¹ 1 John ii. 27.

² John xiv. 16.

³ John xvi. 13.

(From this passage I learn, 1. That every true Christian now receives the Holy Ghost, as the Paraclete or Comforter promised by our Lord, John xiv. 13. Secondly, that every Christian receives him as the Spirit of truth (promised John xvi.) to teach him all things: and 3. That the anointing mentioned in the first epistle of St. John, abides in every Christian.)

26. “In reading of God’s word, he profiteth most, that is most inspired with the Holy Ghost.” Homily on reading the scripture. Part I.

“Human and worldly wisdom is not needful to the understanding of scripture, but the revelation of the Holy Ghost, who inspireth the true meaning unto them that with humility and diligence search for it.” ibid. Part II.

“Make him know and feel, that there is no other name under heaven given unto men, whereby we can be saved.”

“If we feel our conscience at peace with God, through remission of our sin,—all is of God.” Homily on Rogation week. Part III.

“If you feel such a faith in you, rejoice in it, and let it be daily increasing by well-working.” Homily on faith. Part III.

“The faithful may feel wrought tranquility of conscience, the increase of faith and hope, with many other graces of God.” Homily on the sacrament. Part I.

“Godly men feel inwardly God’s Holy Spirit, inflaming their hearts with love.” Homily on certain places of scripture. Part I.

“God give us grace, to know these things, and to feel them in our hearts! This knowledge and feeling is not of ourselves. Let us therefore meekly call upon the bountiful Spirit, the Holy Ghost, to inspire us with his presence, that we may be able to hear the goodness of God to our salvation. For without his lively inspiration, can we not so much as speak the name of the Mediator. No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Much less should we be able to believe and know these great mysteries that be opened to us by Christ. But we have received saith St. Paul, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; for this purpose, that we may know the things which are freely given to us of God. In the power of the Holy Ghost resteth all ability to know God and to please him. It is he that purifieth the mind by his secret working. He enlighteneth the heart, to conceive worthy thoughts of Almighty God. He sitteth in the tongue of man, to stir him to speak his honour. He only ministreth spiritual strength to the powers of the soul and body. And if we have any gift, whereby we may profit our neighbour, all is wrought by this one and the self-same Spirit.” Homily for Rogation week. Part III.

27. Every proposition which I have any where advanced, concerning those operations of the Holy Ghost, which I believe are common to all Christians in all ages, is here clearly maintained by our own church.

Under a full sense of this, I could not well understand for many years, how it was, that on the mentioning any of these great truths, even among men of education, the cry, immediately arose, “An Enthusiast, an Enthusiast!” But I now plainly perceive, this is only an old fallacy in a new shape. To object Enthusiasm to any person or doctrine, is but a decent method of begging the question. It generally spares the objector the trouble of reasoning, and is a shorter and easier way of carrying his cause.

For instance, I assert that “till a man receives the Holy Ghost, he is without God in the world; that he cannot know the things of God, unless God reveal them unto him by the Spirit: no, nor have even one holy or heavenly temper, without the inspiration of the Holy One.” Now should one who is conscious to himself, that he has ♦experienced none of these things, attempt to confute these propositions, either from scripture or antiquity, it might prove a difficult task. What then shall he do? Why, cry out, “Enthusiasm! Enthusiasm!” And the work is done.

But what does he mean by Enthusiasm? Perhaps nothing at all: few have any distinct ideas of its meaning. Perhaps, “something very bad,” or, “something I never experienced and do not understand.” Shall I tell you then, what that “terrible something” is? I believe, thinking men mean by Enthusiasm, a sort of religious madness; a false imagination of being inspired by God: and by an Enthusiast, one that fancies himself under the influence of the Holy Ghost, when in fact he is not.

Let him prove me guilty of this, who can. I will tell you once more the whole of my belief on these heads. And if any man will shew me (by arguments, not hard names) what is wrong, I will thank God and him.

28. Every good gift is from God, and is given to man by the Holy Ghost. By nature there is in us no good thing. And there can be none, but so far as it is wrought in us by that good Spirit. Have we any true knowledge of what is good? This is not the result of our natural understanding. The natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God: so that we never can discern them, until God reveals them unto us by his Spirit. Reveals, that is unveils, uncovers; gives us to know what we did not know before. Have we love? It is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. He inspires, breathes, infuses into our soul, what of ourselves we could not have. Does our Spirit rejoice in God our Saviour? It is joy in (or by) the Holy Ghost. Have we true inward peace? It is the peace of God, wrought in us by the same Spirit. Faith, peace, joy, love, are all his fruits. And as we are figuratively said, to see the light of faith, so by a like figure of speech we are said to feel, this peace and joy and love: that is, we have an inward experience of them, which we cannot find any fitter word to express.

*The reasons why in speaking of these things I use those terms, (inspiration particularly) are, 1. Because they are scriptural. 2. Because they are used by our church. 3. Because I know none better. The word “influence of the Holy Ghost,” which I suppose you use, is both a far stronger and a less natural term than inspiration. It is far stronger; even as far as “flowing into the soul” is a stronger expression than “breathing upon it:” and less natural; as breathing bears a near relation to Spirit; to which flowing in has only a distant relation.

“But you thought I had meant immediate inspiration.” So I do, or I mean nothing at all. Not indeed such inspiration as is sine mediis. But all inspiration, tho’ by means, is immediate. Suppose, for instance, you are employed in private prayer, and God pours his love into your heart. God then acts immediately on your soul: and the love of him which you then experience, is as immediately breathed into you by the Holy Ghost, as if you had lived 1700 years ago. Change the term. Say, “God then assists you to love him?” Well, and is not this immediate assistance? Say, “His Spirit concurs with yours.” You gain no ground. It is immediate concurrence or none at all. God, a Spirit acts upon your Spirit. Make it out any otherwise if you can.

*I cannot conceive, how that harmless word immediate, came to be such a bugbear in the world: “Why, I thought you meant such inspiration as the apostles had; and such a receiving the Holy Ghost as that was at the day of Pentecost.” I do, in part: indeed I do not mean, that Christians now receive the Holy Ghost, in order to work miracles: but they do doubtless now receive, yea, are filled with the Holy Ghost, in order to be filled with the fruits of that blessed Spirit. And he inspires into all true believers now, a degree of the same peace and joy and love, which the apostles felt in themselves on that day, when they were first filled with the Holy Ghost.

29. I have now considered the most material objections I know, which have been lately made against the great doctrines I teach. I have produced, so far as in me lay, the strength of those objections, and then answered them, I hope, in the Spirit of meekness. And now I trust it appears, that these doctrines are no other than the doctrines of Jesus Christ: that they are all evidently contained in the word of God, by which alone I desire to stand or fall; and that they are fundamentally the same with the doctrines of the church of England, of which I do, and ever did profess myself a member.

But there remains one objection, which though relating to the head of doctrine, yet is independent on all that went before. And that is, “You cannot agree in your doctrines among yourselves. One holds one thing, and one another. Mr. Whitefield anathematizes Mr. Wesley; and Mr. Wesley anathematizes Mr. Whitefield. And yet each pretends to be led by the Holy Ghost, by the infallible Spirit of God! Every reasonable man must conclude from hence, that neither one nor the other is led by that Spirit.”

I need not say, how continually this has been urged, both in common conversation and from the press: (I am grieved to add, and from the pulpit too: for, if the argument were good, it would overturn the bible.) Nor, how great stress has been continually laid upon it: whoever proposes it, proposes it as demonstration, and generally claps his wings, as being quite assured, it will admit of no answer.

And indeed I am in doubt, whether it does admit (I am sure, it does not require) any other answer, than that course one of the countryman to the Romish champion, “Bellarmine, Thou liest.” For every proposition contained herein, is grossly, shamelessly false. 1. “You cannot agree in your doctrines among yourselves.”—Who told you so? All our fundamental doctrines, I have recited above. And in every one of these we do and have agreed for several years. In these we hold one and the same thing. In smaller points, each of us thinks, and lets think. 2. “Mr. Whitefield anathematizes Mr. Wesley.” Another shameless untruth. Let any one read what Mr. Whitefield wrote, even in the heat of controversy, and he will be convinced of the contrary. 3. “And Mr. Wesley anathematizes Mr. Whitefield.” This is equally false and scandalous. I reverence Mr. Whitefield, both as a child of God, and a true minister of Jesus Christ. 4. “And yet each pretends to be led by the Holy Ghost, by the infallible Spirit of God.” Not in our private opinions: nor does either of us pretend to be any farther led by the Spirit of God, than every Christian must pretend to be, unless he will deny the bible. For only as many as are led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God. Therefore, if you do not pretend to be led by him too, yea, if it be not so in fact, you are none of his.

And now, what is become of your demonstration? Leave it to the car-men and porters, its just proprietors: to the zealous apple-women that cry after me in the street, “This is he that rails at the Whole Dutyful of Man.” But let every one that pretends to learning or reason, be ashamed to mention it any more.

30. The first inference, easily deduced from what has been said, is, “That we are not false prophets.” In one sense of the word, we are no prophets at all; for we do not foretel things to come. But in another (wherein every minister is a prophet) we are. For we do speak in the name of God. Now a false prophet (in this sense of the word) is one, who declares as the will of God, what is not so. But we declare (as has been shewn at large) nothing else as the will of God, but what is evidently contained in his written word, as explained by our own church. Therefore, unless you can prove the bible to be a false book, you cannot possibly prove us to be false prophets.

The text which is generally cited on this occasion, is Matthew vii. verse 15. But how unhappily chosen! In the preceeding chapters, our Lord had been describing, that righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, and without which we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven: Even the life of God in the soul; holiness of heart, producing all holiness of conversation. In this, he closes that rule which sums up the whole, with those solemn words, Enter ye in at the strait gate: (such indeed is that of universal holiness) For wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction. The gate of hell is wide as the whole earth; the way of unholiness is broad as the great deep. And many there be which go in thereat; yea, and excuse themselves in so doing, Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. It follows, Beware of false prophets; of those who speak as from God, what God hath not spoken; those who shew you any other way to life, than that which I have now shewn. So that the false prophets, here spoken of, are those who point out any other way to heaven than this; who teach men to find a wider gate, a broader way, than that described in the foregoing chapters. But it has been abundantly shewn, that we do not. Therefore (whatever we are beside) we are not false prophets.

Neither are we (as has been frequently and vehemently affirmed) deceivers of the people. If we teach the truth as it is in Jesus, if we speak as the oracles of God, it follows, that we do not deceive those that hear, though they should believe whatever we speak. Let God be true and every man a liar: every man that contradicts his truth. But he will be justified in his saying, and clear when he is judged.

One thing more I infer, “That we are not enthusiasts.” This accusation has been considered at large; and the main arguments hitherto brought to support it, have been weighed in the balance and found wanting: Particularly this, “That none but enthusiasts suppose either that promise of the Comforter¹ or the witness of the Spirit², or that unutterable prayer³, or the unction from the Holy One⁴, to belong, in common, to all Christians.” O my Lord, how deeply have you condemned the generation of God’s children! Whom you have represented as rank, dreaming enthusiasts? As either deluded or designing men? Not only bishop Pearson, a man hitherto accounted both sound in heart, and of good understanding: but likewise archbishop Cranmer, bishop Ridley, bishop Latimer, bishop Hooper! and all the venerable compilers of our liturgy and homilies: All the members of both the houses of convocation, by whom they were revised and approved: Yea, king Edward, and all his lords and commons together, by whose authority they were established! And, with these modern enthusiasts, Origen, Chrysostom, and Athanasius are comprehended in the same censure!

¹ John xiv. 16, 26. xvi. 13.

² Romans viii. 15, 16.

³ Romans viii. 26, 27.

⁴ 1 John ii. 20, 27.

I grant a deist might rank both us and them, in the number of religious madmen: Nay, ought so to do, on his supposition, that the gospel is but a cunningly-devised fable. And on this ground, some of them have done so in fact. One of them was asking me, some years since, “What! are you one of the knight-errants? How, I pray, got this quixotism into your head? You want nothing: you have a good provision for life; and are in a fair way of preferment. And must you leave all, to fight windmills; to convert savages in America?” I could only reply, “Sir, if the bible is a lie, I am as very a madman as you can conceive. But if it be true, I am in my senses. I am neither a madman nor enthusiast. For there is no man who hath left father, or mother, or wife, or house, or land, for the gospel’s sake; but he shall receive an hundred fold, in this world, with persecutions, and in the world to come, eternal life.”

Nominal, outside Christians too, men of form, may pass the same judgment. For we give up all our pretensions to what they account happiness, for what they (with the deists) believe to be a mere dream. We expect, therefore, to pass for enthusiasts, with these also. But wisdom is justified of all her children.

32. I cannot conclude this head without one obvious remark. Suppose we really were enthusiasts; suppose our doctrines were false and unsupported either by reason, scripture, or authority: Then why hath not some one, who is a wise man, and endued with knowledge among you, attempted at least, to shew us our fault in love and meekness of wisdom? Brethren, if ye have bitter zeal in your hearts, your wisdom descendeth not from above. The wisdom that is from above, is pure, peaceable, gentle, easy to be intreated, full of mercy or pity. Does this spirit appear in one single tract of all those which have been published against us? Is there one writer that has reproved us in love? Bring it to a single point. Love hopeth all things. If you had loved us in any degree, you would have hoped, that God would some time give us the knowledge of his truth. But where shall we find even this slender instance of love? Has not every one who has wrote at all (I do not remember so much as one exception) treated us as incorrigible? Brethren, how is this? Why do ye labour to teach us an evil lesson against yourselves? O may God never suffer others to deal with you, as ye have dealt with us!

VI. 1. Before I enter upon the consideration of those objections, which have been made to the manner of our preaching, I believe it may be satisfactory to some readers, if I relate how I began to preach in this manner.

I was ordained deacon in 1725, and priest in the year following. But it was many years after this, before I was convinced of the great truths above recited. During all that time I was utterly ignorant of the nature and condition of justification. Sometimes I confounded it with sanctification (particularly when I was in Georgia.) At other times I had some confused notion about the forgiveness of sins: but then I took it for granted, the time of this must be, either the hour of death, or the day of judgment.

I was equally ignorant of the nature of saving faith; apprehending it to mean no more, than a “firm assent to all the propositions contained in the old and new Testament.”

2. As soon as, by the great blessing of God, I had a clearer view of these things, I began to declare them to others also. I believed, and therefore I spake. Wherever I was now desired to preach, salvation by faith was my only theme. My constant subjects were, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance and remission of sins. These I explained and inforced with all my might, both in every church where I was asked to preach, and occasionally in the religious societies of London and Westminster; to some or other of which I was continually pressed to go, by the stewards or other members of them.

Things were in this posture, when I was told, “I must preach no more in this, and this, and another church:” The reason was usually added without reserve, “Because you preach such doctrines.” So much the more those who could not hear me there, flocked together when I was at any of the societies; where I spoke more or less, though with much inconvenience, to as many as the room I was in would contain.

3. But after a time, finding those rooms could not contain a tenth part of the people that were earnest to hear, I determined to do the same thing in England, which I had often done in a warmer climate: namely, when the house would not contain the congregation, to preach in the open air. This I accordingly did, first at Bristol, where the society rooms were exceeding small, and at Kingswood, where we had no room at all; afterwards in or near London.

And I cannot say, I have ever seen a more awful sight, than when on Rose-green, or the top of Hanham-mount, some thousands of people were calmly joined together in solemn waiting upon God, while

“They stood and under open air adored

The God who made both air, earth, heaven and sky.”

And whether they were listning to his word, with attention still as night; or were lifting up their voice in praise, as the sound of many waters; many a time have I been constrained to say in my heart, How dreadful is this place! This also is no other than the house of God! This is the gate of heaven!

*Be pleased to observe. 1. That I was forbidden, as by a general consent, to preach in any church (though not by any judicial sentence) “for preaching such doctrine.” This was the open, avowed cause: there was at that time no other, either real or pretended; (except that the people crouded so:) 2. That I had no desire or design to preach in the open air, till after this prohibition; 3. That when I did, as it was no matter of choice, so neither of premeditation. There was no scheme at all previously formed, which was to be supported thereby; nor had I any other end in view than this, to save as many souls as I could. 4. Field-preaching was therefore a sudden expedient, a thing submitted to, rather than chosen, and therefore submitted to because I thought preaching even thus, better than not preaching at all: First, in regard to my own soul, because a dispensation of the gospel being committed to me, I did not dare, Not to preach the gospel; Secondly, in regard to the souls of others, whom I every where saw, seeking death in the error of their life.

4. But the author of the observations and of the case of the Methodists briefly stated, more particularly in the point of field-preaching, thinks field-preaching worse than not preaching at all, “because it is illegal.”

Your argument, in form, runs thus:

“That preaching which is contrary to the laws of the land, is worse than not preaching at all:

“But field preaching is contrary to the laws of the land:

“Therefore, it is worse than not preaching at all.”

*The first proposition is not self-evident, nor indeed universally true. For the preaching of all the primitive Christians was contrary to the whole tenor of the Roman law; the worship of the devil-gods being established by the strongest laws then in being. Nor is it ever true, but on supposition, that the preaching in question is an indifferent thing.

But ♦waving this, I deny the second proposition; I deny that field-preaching is contrary to the laws of our land.

To prove which, you begin thus, “It does not appear, that any of the preachers among the Methodists, have qualified themselves and the places of their assembling, according to the act of toleration.”

*I answer, 1. That act grants toleration to those who dissent from the established church. But we do not dissent from it. Therefore we cannot make use of that act. 2. That act exempts dissenters from penalties consequent on their breach of preceding laws. But we are not conscious of breaking any law at all. Therefore we need not make use of it.

In the next section you say, “They have broken through all these provisions, in open defiance of government: and have met, not only in houses, but in the fields, notwithstanding the statute (22 Charles II. chapter 1.) which forbids this by name.”

*I answer, 1. We do nothing in defiance of government. We reverence magistrates, as the ministers of God. 2. Although we have met in the fields, yet we do not conceive that statute at all affects us: not only because that act points wholly at dissenters; whereas we are members of the established church; but also because (they are your own words) it was evidently intended to suppress and prevent sedition: whereas no sedition, nor any the least approach thereto, can with any colour be laid to our charge.

In your third section you affirm, “That the act of toleration itself cannot secure us in field-preaching, from the penalties of former laws.” We have no desire it should; as not apprehending ourselves to be condemned by any former law whatever. Nor does what you add, “That the act of toleration forbids any assembly of persons dissenting from the church of England, to meet with the doors locked,” affect us at all; because we do not dissent from it.

5. In the case of the Methodists briefly stated, your first observation is, “The act of toleration leaves them liable to the penalties of several statutes made against unlawful assemblies.”

I suppose then these several statutes specify what those unlawful assemblies are; and whether unlawful, as being condemned by previous laws, or made unlawful by those statutes.

And it still remains to be proved, that our assemblies are unlawful, in one or other of these senses.

You next observe, that, “the dissenters of all denominations, qualify themselves according to the act of toleration: otherwise, they are liable to the penalties of all the laws recited in this act.”

I answer, as before, all this strikes wide. It relates wholly to “persons dissenting from the church.” But we are not the men. We do not dissent from the church. Whoever affirms it, we put him to the proof.

You go on, “One of those laws so recited (viz. 22 Charles II. chapter 1.) is that which forbids field-preaching by name; and was evidently intended, not only to suppress, but also to prevent sedition. As the title of the act declares, and as the preamble expresses it, to provide farther and more speedy remedies against it.”

*Was this then, in your own judgment, the evident intention of that act, viz. To provide remedies against sedition? Does the very title of the act declare this? And the preamble also express it? With what justice then, with what ingenuity or candor, with what shadow of truth or reason, can any man cite this act against us? Whom you yourself no more suspect of a design to raise sedition (I appeal to your own conscience in the sight of God) than of a design to blow up the city of London.

6. Hitherto therefore it hath not been made to appear, that field-preaching is contrary to any law in being. However, “It is dangerous.” This you strongly insist on. “It may be attended with mischievous consequences. It may give advantages to the enemies of the established government. It is big with mischief.” (Observations, Section I. and II.)

With what mischief? Why, “evil-minded men, by meeting together in the fields, under pretence of religion, may raise riots and tumults; or by meeting secretly, may carry on private cabals against the state.” (Case of the Methodists, page 2.)

“And if the Methodists themselves are a harmless and loyal people, it is nothing to the point in hand. For disloyal and seditious persons, may use such an opportunity of getting together, in order to execute any private design. Mr. Whitefield says, 30, 50 or 80,000 have attended his preaching at once. Now, 1. He cannot know one tenth part of such a congregation. 2. All people may come and carry on what designs they will: Therefore 3. This is a great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.

“With what safety to the public these field-preachings may be continued, let the world judge.” (Ibid. page 2, 3, 4.).

*May I speak without offence? I cannot think you are in earnest. You do not mean what you say. Do you believe, Mr. Whitefield had eighty thousand hearers at once? No more that you believe he had eighty millions. Is not all this talk of danger, mere finesse? Thrown in purely ad movendam invidiam? You know governments generally are suspicious; especially in time of war: and therefore apply, as you suppose, to their weak side; in hopes, if possible, to deliver over these hereticks to the secular arm. However, I will answer, as if you spoke from your heart. For I am in earnest, if you are not.

First, “The preacher cannot know a tenth part of his congregation.” Let us come to the present state of things. The largest congregation that now attend the preaching of any Methodist, are those (God be merciful to me!) that attend mine. And cannot I know a tenth part of one of these congregations, either at Bristol, Kingswood, Newcastle, or London? As strange as it may seem, I generally know two-thirds of the congregation in every place, even on Sunday evening, and nine in ten of those who attend at most other times. 2. “All people may come and carry on what designs they will.” Not so. All field-preaching is now in the open day. And were only ten persons, to come to such an assembly with arms, it would soon be inquired, with what design they came. This is therefore, 3. No “great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.” And if ever any disturbance has been raised, it was quite of another kind.

The public then is entirely safe, if it be in no other danger than arises from field-preaching.

7. There is one other sentence belonging to this head, in the eighth section of the observations. “The religious societies, you say, in London and Westminster, for many years past, have received no discouragements, but on the contrary have been countenanced and incouraged both by the bishops and clergy.” How is this? Have they then “qualified themselves and places of their assembling, according to the act of toleration?” Have they “embraced the protection which that act might give them, in case they complied with the conditions of it?” If not, are they not all “liable to the penalties of the several statutes made before that time against unlawful assemblies?”

How can they escape? Have they “qualified themselves for holding these separate assemblies, according to the tenor of that act”? “Have then the several members thereof taken the oaths to the government?” And are the “doors of the places wherein they meet, always open at the time of such meeting?” I presume, you know they are not: and that neither “the persons nor places are so qualified as that act directs.”

How then come “the bishops and clergy, to countenance and encourage” unlawful assemblies? If it be said, “They meet in a private, inoffensive way;” that is nothing to the point in hand. If those meetings are unlawful in themselves, all their inoffensiveness will not make them lawful. “O, but they behave with modesty and decency.” Very well; but the law! What is that to the law? There can be no solid defence but this: They are not dissenters from the church; therefore they cannot use, and they do not need the act of toleration. And their meetings are not seditious; therefore the statute against seditious meetings does not affect them.

The application is obvious. If our meetings are illegal, so are theirs also. But if this plea be good (as doubtless it is) in the one case, it is good in the other also.

9. You propose another objection to our manner of preaching, in the second part of the observations. The substance of it I will repeat, and answer as briefly as I can.

“They run up and down from place to place, and from county to county:” that is, they preach in several places. This is undoubtedly true. “They draw after them confused multitudes of people:” that is, “Many come to hear them.” This is true also. “But they would do well to remember, God is not the author of confusion or of tumult, but of peace.” I trust we do: nor is there any confusion or tumult at all, in our largest congregations; unless at some rare times when the sons of Belial mix therewith, on purpose to disturb the peaceable worshippers of God.

“But our church has provided against this preaching up and down, in the ordination of a priest, by expressly limiting the exercise of the powers then conferred upon him, to the congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto.”

I answer, 1. Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just as you propose it, it proves, That no priest has authority, either to preach or minister the sacraments, in any other than his own congregation.

2. Had the powers conferred been so limited when I was ordained priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was not appointed to any congregation at all: but was ordained as a member of that “College of divines,” (so our statutes express it) “founded to overturn all heresies; and defend the Catholic faith.”

3. For many years after I was ordained priest, this limitation was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection, to my preaching up and down in Oxford or London, or the parts adjacent, in Gloucestershire, or Worcestershire; Lancashire, Yorkshire or Lincolnshire. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.

4. And in fact, Is it not universally allowed, that every priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, either to preach or to administer the sacraments, in any congregation, ♦wherever the rector or curate desires his assistance? Does not every one then, see through this thin pretence?

10. “The bishops and universities indeed have power to grant licences to Itinerants. But the church has provided in that case; They are not to preach in any church (Canon 50.) till they shew their licence.”

The church has well provided in that case. But what has that case to do with the case of common clergymen? Only so much as to shew, how grossly this canon has been abused, at Islington in particular: where the churchwardens were instructed to hinder, by main force, the priest whom the vicar himself had appointed, from preaching, and to quote this canon; which, as you plainly shew, belongs to quite another thing.

In the note you add, “Mr. Wesley being asked, By what authority he preached, replied, By the authority of Jesus Christ conveyed to me by the (now) archbishop of Canterbury, when he laid his hands upon me and said, Take thou authority to preach the gospel. In this reply he thought fit, for a plain reason, to leave out this latter part of the commission: for that would have shewn his reader, the restraint and limitation, under which the exercise of the power is granted.” Nay, I did not print the latter part of the words, for a plainer reason, because I did not speak them. And I did not speak them then, because they did not come into my mind. Tho’ probably if they had, I should not have spoken them: it being my only concern, to answer the question proposed, in as few words as I could.

But before those words, which you suppose to imply such a restraint, as would condemn all the bishops and clergy in the nation, were those spoken without any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an indelible character, “Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his Holy sacraments, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

You proceed, “In the same journal he declares, that he looks upon all the world as his parish, and explains his meaning as follows; ‘In whatever part of it I am, I judge it meet, right, and my bounden duty, to declare unto all that are willing to hear, the glad tidings of salvation. This is the work which I know God hath called me to.’ Namely, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery: which directs me how to obey that general command, while we have time, let us do good unto all men.”

11. You object farther, “That the methodists do not observe the rubrick before the communion service; which directs, so many as desire to partake of the holy communion, to signify their names to the curate the day before.” What curate desires they should? Whenever any minister will give but one week’s notice of this, I undertake, all that have any relation to me, shall signify their names within the time appointed.

You object also, that they break through the twenty-eighth canon, which requires, “That if strangers come often to any church from other parishes, they should be remitted to their own churches, there to receive the communion with their neighbours.”

But what if there be no communion there? Then this canon does not touch the case; nor does any one break it, by coming to another church purely because there is no communion at his own.

As to your next advice, “To have a greater regard to the rules and orders of the church,” I cannot; for I now regard them, next to the word of God. And as to your last, “To renounce communion with the church,” I dare not. Nay but let them thrust us out. We will not leave the ship: if you cast us out of it, then our Lord will take us up.

12. To the same head may be referred the objection some time urged, by a friendly and candid man, viz. “That it was unlawful to use extemporary prayer, because there was a canon against it.”

It was not quite clear to me, that the canon he cited was against extemporary prayer. But supposing it were, my plain answer would be, “That the canon I dare not obey: because the law of man binds only so far as it is consistent with the word of God.”

The same person objected, my not obeying the bishops and governors of the church. I answer, I both do and will obey them, in whatsoever I can with a clear conscience. So that there is no just ground for that charge, that I despise either the rules, or the governors of the church. I obey them in all things where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary. Even in that case, I shew all the deference I can; I endeavour to act as inoffensively as possible: and am ready to submit to any penalty, which can by law be inflicted upon me. Would to God every minister and member of the church, were herein altogether as I am!

VII. 1. I have considered the chief objections that have lately been urged against the doctrines I teach. The main arguments brought against this manner of teaching, have been considered also. It remains, to examine the most current objections, concerning the effects of this teaching.

Many affirm, “That it does abundance of hurt: that it has had very bad effects; insomuch that if any good at all has been done, yet it bears no proportion to the evil.”

But to come to particulars, “First then, you are disturbers of the public peace.”

What, do we either teach or raise sedition? Do we speak evil of the ruler of our people? Or do we stir them up against any of those that are put in authority under him? Do we directly or indirectly promote faction, mutiny, or rebellion? I have not found any man in his senses yet, that would affirm this.

“But it is plain, peace is broke and disturbances do arise, in consequence of your preaching.” I grant it. But what would you infer? Have you never read the bible? Have you not read, that the Prince of peace himself was, in this sense, a disturber of the public peace? When he came into Jerusalem, (Matthew xxi. 10.) all the city was moved, (ἐσείσθη) shaken as with an earthquake. And the disturbance arose higher and higher, till the whole multitude cried out together, Away with him, away with him; crucify him, crucify him, and Pilate gave sentence, it should be done. Such another disturber of the public peace, was that Stephen, even from the time he began disputing with the Libertines and Cyrenians, till the people stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city and stoned him. Such disturbers of the peace were all those ringleaders of the sect of the Nazarenes, (commonly called apostles) who wherever they came, turned the world upside down. And above all the rest, that Paul of Tarsius, who occasioned so much disturbance at Damascus, (Acts ix.) at Antioch of Pisidia (chapter xiii.) at Iconium (chapter xiv.) at Lystra (verse 19.) at Philippi (chapter xvi.) at Thessalonica (chapter xvii.) and particularly at Ephesus. The consequence of his preaching there was, That the whole city was filled with confusion. And they all ran together with one accord, some crying one thing, some another: inasmuch as the greater part of them knew not wherefore they were come together.

*2. And can we expect it to be any otherwise now? Although what we preach is the gospel of peace, yet if you will violently and illegally hinder our preaching, must not this create disturbance? But observe, the disturbance begins on your part. All is peace, till you raise that disturbance. And then you very modestly impute it to us, and lay your own riot at our door!

But of all this, our Lord hath told us before. Think not that I am come to send peace upon earth: that this will be the immediate effect, wherever my gospel is preached with power. I am not come to send peace, but a sword: this (so far as the wisdom of God permits, by whom the hairs of your head are all numbred) will be the first consequence of my coming, whenever my word turns sinners from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God.

I would wish all you who see this scripture fulfilled, by disturbance following the preaching the gospel, to remember the behaviour of that wise magistrate at Ephesus on the like occasion. He did not lay the disturbance to the preacher’s charge, but beckoned to the multitude and said, ye men of Ephesus—Ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly. For ye have brought these men, who are neither robbers of temples, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess: (not convicted of any such notorious crime, as can at all excuse this lawless violence.) But if Demetrius hath a matter against any, the law is open, and there are deputies (or proconsuls, capable of hearing and deciding the cause) let them implead one another. But if ye enquire any thing concerning other things, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.