“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.
♦ “experinced” replaced with “experienced”
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 Spirit_²,
or _that unutterable prayer_³, or _the unction from the Holy One_⁴, 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.
♦ “waveing” replaced with “waving” for consistency
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_,