rules_, than to follow them in all things, unless where I apprehend
there is a _divine_ rule to the contrary. I dare not _renounce
communion_ with the church of _England_. As a _minister_, I teach
her doctrines. I use her offices. I conform to her rubricks. I
suffer reproach for my attachment to her. As a private _member_ I
hold her doctrines. I join in her offices, in prayer, in hearing, in
communicating. I _expect_ every reasonable man, touching these facts,
to _believe his own eyes and ears_.――――But if these facts are so, how
dare any man of common sense, charge me with _renouncing_ the church of
_England_?
9. Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of this matter is, 1.
I often use extemporary prayer. 2. Wherever I can, I preach the gospel.
3. Those who desire to _live the gospel_ I advise how to watch over
each other, and to put from them such as walk disorderly. Now whether
these things are, on other considerations, right or wrong, this single
point I must still insist on; “All this does not prove, either that I
am no _member_, or that I am no _minister_ of the church of _England_.”
Nay, nothing can prove, I am no _member_ of the church, till I either
am _excommunicated_, or _renounce_ her communion, and no longer join
in her doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer. Nor can
any thing prove, I am no _minister_ of the church, till I either am
_deposed_ from my ministry, or _voluntarily renounce_ her, and wholly
cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her rubricks
for conscience sake.
However I grant, that whatsoever is _urged on this head, deserves my
most serious consideration_. And whensoever I am _convinced_, that by
taking any _methods_, more or less _different_ from those I now take, I
may better _consult the honour of religion, and be able to do more good
in the world_; by the grace of God, I shall not persist in these one
hour, but instantly chuse the more excellent way.
* * * * *
IV. 1. What you urge on the head of _enthusiasm_ also, I think
_deserves my most serious consideration_. (You may add, _and
presumption_. I let it drop once more; because I do not love tautology;
and because I look upon presumption to be ♦essential to enthusiasm,
and consequently contained therein.) I will therefore weigh what you
advance concerning it, and explain myself something more at large.
♦ “assential” replaced with “essential”
_I am to examine_, you say, (page 120.) _How far you have cleared
yourself of enthusiasm. My account of this you set down, making as
many alterations and omissions as there are lines_――――Perhaps more;
for I never designed to recite the whole, but only the material part
of it. _If you did not wholly approve of it, why would you not let me
know, what you disliked in it?_――――Because I do not love many words.
Therefore when the argument stood thus: “He that does this is an
enthusiast: but you do this:” I was generally content with answering
the 2d proposition, and leaving the first as I found it.
_I laid this charge against you and the Methodists in general: between
you every part of the character has been verified._――――I answer for
one; let the rest answer for themselves,――――if they have not better
employment.
That the question between us may be the more fully understood, I shall
briefly compare together, 1. Your remarks. 2. My answer. 3. Your reply:
though still I cannot promise to repeat your words at length.
2. You remark (page 60.) _Though you would be thought an enemy to
enthusiasm and presumption,――――yet in both you are far from being
inferior to the_ Moravians, _or indeed to any others_: [strong
assertions! _not inferior to_ any others? Not to the _French_ prophets,
or _John_ of _Leyden_?] 1. _Enthusiasm is, a false persuasion of an
extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men to such conduct, as is
only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance._ I answer,
(page 38.) “Before this touches me, you are to prove (which I conceive
you have not done yet) that my conduct is such, as is only to be
justified by the supposition of such assistance.” You reply (page 120.)
_This, I think, is proved in the preceding tract._――――I think not.
Let men of candour judge.――――Yet I am persuaded, there was such an
assistance at some times. You have also to prove, that this was _a
false_ persuasion.
You remark, 2. _An enthusiast is then sincere, but mistaken._ (page
61.) I answered, “That I am mistaken, remains to be proved.” You reply,
_The world must judge_. Agreed, if by the world you mean, men of reason
and religion.
You remark, 3. _His intentions must be good: but his actions will
be most abominable._ I answered,――――“What actions of mine are most
abominable?” You reply, _The world must be judge, whether your public
actions have not been――――in many respects abominable_. I am glad
the charge softens. I hope by and by you will think they are only
abominable in some respects.
You remark 4. _Instead of making the word of God――――the rule of his
actions, he follows only secret persuasion or impulse._――――I answered,
“I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the
rule of all my actions, and that I no more follow any _secret impulse_
instead thereof, than I follow _Mahomet_ or _Confucius_.” You reply
(page 121.) _You fall again into your strain of boasting, as if
declarations could have any weight against facts; assert, that “you
make the word of God the rule of all your actions,” and that I “perhaps
do not know many persons.”_――――Stop, Sir. You are stepping over one or
two points, which I have not done with.
You remark, 5. _Instead of judging of his spiritual estate, by the
improvement of his heart, he rests only on extasies_, &c.――――I answered,
“Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. I judge of my
spiritual estate, by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my
life conjointly.” To this I do not perceive you reply one word. Herein
then I am not an enthusiast.
You remark, 6. _He is very liable to err――――not considering things
coolly and carefully._ I answered, “So indeed I am: I find it every
day more and more. But I do not yet find, that this is owing to my want
of _considering things coolly and carefully_. Perhaps you do not know
many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully
consider every step they take (page 39.) Yet I know I am not cool or
careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants!” You reply, _Your
private life I have nothing to do with_: and then enlarge on my _method
of consulting scripture_, and of using lots: of both which by and by.
But mean time, observe this does not affect the question. for I neither
cast lots, nor use that method at all, till I have considered things
with all the care I can. So that, be this right or wrong, it is no
manner of proof, that I do not “carefully consider every step I take.”
But how little did I profit by begging your excuse, suppose I had
spoken a word unguardedly? O Sir, you put me in mind of him who said,
“I know not to shew mercy!” You have need never to fight, but when you
are sure to conquer: seeing you are resolved neither to give nor take
quarter.
You remark, 7. _He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and
argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the
direction of God’s Spirit._ I answered, “I am very difficult to be
convinced by dry blows or hard names.――――But not, by reason or argument.
At least that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention.
For I claim no other direction of God’s Spirit than is _common_ to all
believers.”
You reply (page 124) 1.――――_I fear this will not be easily
reconcileable to your past pretences and behaviour._ I believe it
will; in particular to what I speak of the light I received from God in
that important affair. (1 journal page 37.) But as to the directions,
in general of the Spirit of God, we very probably differ in this; you
apprehend those directions to be extraordinary, which I suppose to be
common to all believers.
You remark, 8. _Whoever opposes him will be charged with resisting or
rejecting the Spirit._ I answered, “What! Whoever opposes me, John
Wesley?――――Do I charge every such person with _rejecting the Spirit_?
No more than I charge him with robbing on the highway.――――Do I charge
_you_ with rejecting the Spirit?” You reply, _You deny that you charge
the opposers with rejecting the Spirit, and affirm, that you never said
or thought, that what you do is to be accounted the work of God_. Here
you blend different sentences together, which I must consider apart,
as they were written. And first, where do I charge you with rejecting
the Spirit? If I charge whoever opposes me with this, undoubtedly I
charge you. If I do not charge you, that proposition is false; I do
not so charge whoever opposes me. Your next words are, _You affirm that
you never said or thought, that what you do is ♦to be accounted the
work of God.――――If it be the work of God, you need not deny the other
point._――――Yes, Sir: whether it be or no, I must still deny, that I
ever charged you with rejecting the Spirit in opposing me.
♦ “be” replaced with “to be”
You remark, 9. _His own dreams must be regarded as oracles._――――I
answered, “Whose? I desire neither my dreams nor my waking thoughts,
may be regarded at all, unless just so far as they agree with the
oracles of God.” To this also you make no reply.
You remark, 10. _However wild――――his behaviour may be, whatever
he――――does, is to be accounted the work of God._ It was to this I
answered, “I never said so of what I do: I never thought so.” This
answer was ill expressed. And I might have foreseen, you would hardly
fail, to make your advantage of it. I must therefore explain myself
upon it a little farther. You said, “An enthusiast accounts _whatever
he does_ to be the work of God.” I should have said, “but I do not
account _whatever I do_ to be the work of God.” What that is, which I
do account his work, will be considered by and by.
You remark, 11. _He talks in the stile of inspired persons._ I answered,
“No otherwise inspired, than you are, if you love God.” You reply,
(page 126.) _The point was not, whether you are actually inspired, but
whether you have talked in the stile of those who were so_. That was so
much the point, that if it were allowed, it would overturn your whole
argument. For if I was inspired (in _your_ sense) you could not term
that inspiration enthusiasm without blasphemy: but you again mistake my
words. The plain meaning of them is, that I talk in the stile of those
persons, who are “no otherwise inspired than you are, if you love God.”
You remark, 12. _He applies scripture phrases to himself, without
attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference
of times and circumstances._ (page 62.) I answered, “I am not conscious
of any thing like this. I apply no scripture phrase (page 39) either to
myself or any other, without carefully considering both the _original
meaning_, and the _secondary_ sense, wherein, allowing for different
times and circumstances, it may be applied to ordinary Christians.”
You reply, _This also you deny to have done; holding however some_
secondary _sense, (what it is you have not told us) in which scripture
phrases may――――be applied to ordinary Christians_. I have largely told
you, what I mean by, a _secondary_ sense, in the first part of the
_Farther Appeal_. You add, (page 126.) _many things which were truly
written of the preaching of Christianity at first, you have vainly
applied to yourselves_. Sir, I am to answer only for myself: as I will
for that expression, _Behold the day of the Lord is come; he is again
visiting and redeeming his people_!
3. I come now to what you expatiate upon at large, as the two grand
instances of enthusiasm. The first is plainly this. * At some rare
times, when I have been in great distress of soul, or in utter
uncertainty how to act, in an important case, which required a speedy
determination: after using all other means that occurred, I have casts
lots, or opened the bible. And by this means I have been relieved from
that distress, or directed in that uncertainty.
Instances of this kind occur in the 12. 14. 15. 28. and 88th pages of
the third journal: as also in the 27. 28. and 80th page of the last
journal. I desire any who would understand this matter throughly, to
read those passages as they stand at length.
As to the particular instances, I would observe, 1. That with regard
to my first journey to _Bristol_, you should in any wise have set
down those words, that preface the scriptures there recited. “I was
intreated, in the most pressing manner, to come to _Bristol_ without
delay. This I was not at all forward to do: and perhaps a little the
less inclined to it――――because of the remarkable scriptures which
offered, as often as we enquired touching the consequence of this
removal: though whether this was permitted only for the trial of our
faith, God knoweth, and the event will shew.”――――From the scriptures
afterwards recited, some inferred, that the event, they apprehended,
was yet afar off.――――I infer nothing at all. I still know not how to
judge; but leave the whole to God.――――* This only I know, that the
continual expectation of death, was then an unspeakable blessing to
me: that I did not dare, knowingly, to waste a moment, neither to throw
away one desire on earthly things: those words being ever uppermost in
my thoughts, and indeed frequently on my tongue,
E’er long, when sov’reign wisdom wills
My soul an unknown path shall tread,
Shall strangely leave, who strangely fills
This frame, and waft me to the dead.
O what is death? ’Tis life’s last shore,
Where vanities are vain no more:
Where all pursuits their goal obtain,
And life is all re-touch’d again.――――
I observe, 2. That in two other of those instances, (_3 journal_ pages
12 and 14.) it is particularly mentioned, that “I was troubled;” and
that by the seasonable application of those scriptures, that trouble
was entirely removed. The same blessing I received (so I must term it
still) from the words set down in the 88th page: and in a yet higher
degree, from that exceeding, ♦apposite scripture mentioned in the 80th
page of the last journal.
♦ “opposite” replaced with “apposite” per Errata
I observe, 3. That at the times to which your other citations refer,
I was utterly uncertain how to act, in points of great importance,
and such as required a speedy determination: and that by this means my
uncertainty was removed, and I went on my way rejoicing, _Journal 3._
pages 12, 15. _Journal 4._ pages 27, 28.
My _own experience_ therefore, which you _think_ should _discourage
me for the future_ from any thing of this kind, does on the contrary
greatly encourage me herein; since I have found much benefit, and no
inconvenience: unless perhaps this be one, that you _cannot acquit me
of enthusiasm_: add, if you please, and presumption.
But you ask, _Has God ever commanded us to_ do _thus_? I believe he
has neither commanded nor forbidden it in scripture. But then remember,
_That scripture_ (to use the words which you cite, from _our learned
and judicious_ Hooker) _is_ not _the only rule of all things, which
in this life, may be done by men_――――All I affirm concerning this, is,
_That it may be done_; and that I have in fact, received _assistance_
and _direction_ thereby.
4. I give the same answer to your assertion, (page 123.) that we are
not ordered in scripture to decide any point in question by _lots_. You
allow indeed, there are _instances of this in scripture_; but affirm,
these _were miraculous: nor can we without presumption_ (a species
of enthusiasm) _apply this method_. I want proof of this: bring one
plain text of scripture, and I am satisfied.――――_This, I apprehend,
you learned from the_ Moravians――――I did; though ’tis true, Mr.
_Whitefield_ thought I went too far therein.――――_Instances of the
same occur in your journals. I will mention only one. It being debated
when you should go to_ Bristol, _you say, “We at length all agreed,
to decide it by lot. And by this it was determined, I should go.”_
(Journal 3, page 28.) _Is this your way of carefully considering every
step you take? Can there be greater rashness and extravagance? Reason
is thus in a manner rendered useless: prudence is set aside, and
affairs of moment left to be determined by chance!_ page 124.
So this you give as a genuine instance of my proceedings――――And, I
suppose, of your own fairness and candour! “We agreed at length, to
decide it by lot.” True; at _length_: after a debate of some hours;
after carefully hearing and weighing coolly, all the reasons which
could be alledged on either side; “Our brethren still continuing the
dispute, without any probability of their coming to one conclusion,
we at length (the night being now far spent) all agreed to this.” _Can
there be greater rashness and extravagance?_――――I cannot but think
there can. _Reason is thus in a manner rendered useless._ No: we had
used it as far as it could go: from _Saturday, March 17_, (when I
received the first letter) to _Wednesday 28_, when the case was laid
before the society. _Prudence is set aside_: Not so; but the arguments
here were so equal, that she saw not how to determine:――――_And affairs
of moment left to be determined by chance_! By chance? What a blunder
then is that, _The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposal
thereof is of the Lord_!
* This I firmly believe is truth and reason, and will be to the end
of the world. And I therefore still subscribe to that declaration of
the _Moravian_ church (laid before the whole body of divines in the
university of _Wirtemberg_, and not by them accounted _enthusiasm_)
“We have a peculiar esteem for _lots_, and accordingly use them both
in public and private, to decide points of importance, when the reasons
brought on each side, appear to be of equal weight. And we believe
this to be then the only way, of wholly setting aside our own will, of
acquitting ourselves of all blame, and clearly knowing what is the will
of God.” Journal 2, page 81.
5. You next _remarked_ several _instances_ of my enthusiasm. The first
was, That of Mrs. _Jones_. The next ran thus. _Again, you say_, “I
expounded out of the fulness that was given me.” (page 64.) I answered,
“I mean, I had then a _fuller_, deeper sense (of what I spoke) than I
_ordinarily_ have.” (page 41.) But if you still think, _It would have
been more decent to have said, according to the best of my power and
ability, with God’s assistance, I expounded_; I will say so another
time.
With regard to the third _instance_ of enthusiasm, you _remarked, If
you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing
in it worthy of being related_, page 64.――――I answered, “It may be
so. Let it pass then as a trifle not worth relating; but still it
is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as
miraculous――――But as a signal instance of God’s particular providence,
page 42.” How friendly and generous is your reply! _You seem ashamed of
it――――I am glad you give this fooling up, and hope for the future, you
will treat your readers better._ (page 131.) Sir, I am not _ashamed
of it_; nor shall I ever give _this fooling_ up, till I give up the
bible. I still look upon this “as a signal instance of God’s particular
providence”――――But _how is this consistent with yielding it to be a
trifle_? (page 132.) My words do not imply, that I _yield_ it so to be.
Being urged with the dilemma, “Either this is related as miraculous,
(and then it is enthusiasm) or it is not worth relating:” I answered
(to avoid drawing the saw of controversy) “Let it pass then as a trifle
not worth relating. But still, (if it be a trifle, which I _suppose_,
not grant) it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look
upon it as miraculous.”
And yet I believe I yielded too much, and what might too much favour
your assertion, that _there is a great difference between particular
providences and such extraordinary interpositions_.――――Pray, Sir, shew
me what this difference is. It is a subject that deserves your coolest
thoughts――――_I know no ground――――to hope or pray for such immediate
reliefs.――――These things must be represented either as common accidents
or as miracles._ I do not throughly understand your terms. What is a
common _accident_? That a sparrow falls to the ground? Or something
more inconsiderable than the hairs of your head? Is there no medium
between accident and miracle? If there be, what is that medium?――――When
we are agreed with regard to these few points, I shall be glad to
resume the subject.
6. The fourth instance of my enthusiasm was this, that I _related
judgments inflicted on my opposers_. As to Mr. _Molther_, I must
observe once more, that I do believe there was a particular providence
in his sickness. But I do not believe, (nor did I design to insinuate)
that it was a judgment, for opposing _me_.
You go on. _Again, you mention “as an awful providence, the case of a
poor wretch who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and had boasted
to many, that he would come again on_ Sunday, _and no man should stop
his mouth then――――But on_ Friday _God laid his hand upon him, and on_
Sunday _he was buried_.” (page 66.) I answered, “I look on this as a
manifest judgment of God, on a hardened sinner, for his complicated
wickedness”. (page 42.) You reply, page 133. _Add, if you please, “His
labouring with all his might to hinder the word of God.” Here therefore
is a confest judgment, for his opposition to you._――――There is, for
his _thus_ opposing with curses and blasphemy. This was part of his
complicated wickedness. Here then you _think I plead guilty_.――――Not
of _enthusiasm_; till you prove, this was not “an awful providence.”
_Again, “One was just going to beat his wife (which he frequently did)
when God smote him in a moment, so that his hand dropped, and he fell
down upon the ground, having no more strength than a new-born child.”
Have we any warrant either from scripture, or the common dispensations
of providence, to interpret misfortunes of this nature as judgments?_
page 67. I answered, “Can you, Sir, consider this, as one of the common
dispensations of providence? Have you known a parallel one in your
life? But it was never cited by me (as it is by you) as an immediate
punishment on a man for _opposing me_”. page 42.――――You reply, _As
if what is not common, or what I have not known, must be a miraculous
judgment_.――――I believe it was, whether miraculous or no, a judgment
mixed with mercy.
You now add to the rest the following instance: “One _John Haydon_, a
man of a regular life and conversation, being informed, that _people
fell into strange fits at the_ societies, came to see and judge for
himself. But he was still less satisfied than before; insomuch that he
went about to his acquaintance one after another, and laboured above
measure to convince them, it was a delusion of the devil. We were going
home, when one met us in the street, and informed us, that _J. H._ was
fallen raving mad. It seems he had sat down to dinner, but had a mind
first to end the sermon on salvation by faith. In reading the last page
he changed colour, fell off his chair, and began screaming terribly,
and beating himself against the ground. The neighbours were alarmed,
and flocked into the house. I came in and found him upon the floor,
♦the room being full of people, whom his wife would have kept without,
but he cried aloud, No; let them all come; let all the world see the
just judgment of God. Two or three men were holding him as well as they
could. He immediately fixed his eyes upon me, and cried, Ay, this is
he, who I said was a deceiver of the people. But God has overtaken me.
I said, it was all a delusion. But this is no delusion. He then roared
out, O thou devil! Thou cursed devil! Yea, thou legion of devils! Thou
canst not stay! Christ will call thee out. I know his work is begun.
Tear me to pieces if thou wilt, but thou canst not hurt me. He then
beat himself against the ground again, his breast heaving at the same
time, as in the pangs of death, and great drops of sweat trickling down
his face. We all betook ourselves to prayer. His pangs ceased, and both
his body and soul were set at liberty.” _Journal 3._ page 44.
♦ duplicate word “the” removed