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.

♦ “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_, 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?

♦ “whereever” replaced with “wherever”

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._

3. “But you create divisions in private families.” Accidentally, we do. For instance, suppose an entire family to have the form but not the power of godliness; or to have neither the form nor the power; in either case, they may in some sort agree together. But suppose, when these hear the plain word of God, one or two of them are convinced, “This is the truth. And I have been all this time in the broad way that leadeth to destruction:” These then will begin to mourn after God; while the rest remain as they were. Will they not therefore of consequence divide, and form themselves into separate parties? Must it not be so, in the very nature of things? And how exactly does this agree with the words of our Lord? _Suppose ye that I came to send peace upon earth? I tell you nay: But rather division. For from henceforth there shall be five divided in one house, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father: the mother against her daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law._ (Luke xii. 51, 52, 53.) _And the foes of a man, shall be they of his own houshold._ (Matthew x. 36.)

Thus it was from the very beginning. For is it to be supposed, that a _Heathen_ parent, would long endure a _Christian_ child? Or, that a _Heathen_ husband would agree with a _Christian_ wife? Unless either the believing wife could gain her husband; or the unbelieving husband prevailed on the wife to renounce _her way_ of worshipping God: at least, unless she would obey him in going no more to those _societies_ or _conventicles_, (ἑταιρίαι) as they termed the Christian assemblies.

*4. Do you think now, I have an eye to _your_ case? Doubtless I have; for I do not fight as one that beateth the air. “Why have not I a right to hinder my own wife or child, from going to a conventicle? And is it not the duty of wives to obey their husbands? And of children to obey their parents?” Only set the case seventeen hundred years back, and your own conscience gives you the answer. What would St. _Paul_ have said to one whose husband forbade her, to follow _this way_ any more? What directions would our Saviour have given to him whose father enjoined him, not to hear the gospel? His words are extant still, _He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me._ (Matthew x. 37, 38.) Nay more, _If any man cometh to me, and hateth not_ (in comparison of me) _his father, and mother, and wife, and children, yea and his own life, he cannot be my disciple_. (Luke xiv. 26.)

*“O, but this is not a parallel case. For they were _Heathens_; but I am a _Christian_.” A Christian! Are you so? Do you understand the word? Do you know what a Christian is? If you are a Christian, you have the mind that was in Christ; and you so walk as he also walked. You are holy as he is holy, both in heart, and in all manner of conversation. Have you then the mind that was in Christ? And do you walk as Christ walked? Are you inwardly and outwardly holy? I fear, not even outwardly. No; you live in known sin. Alas! How then are you a Christian? What a railer, a Christian? A common swearer, a Christian? A sabbath-breaker, a Christian? A drunkard or whoremonger, a Christian? Thou art a Heathen barefaced; the wrath of God is on thy head, and the curse of God upon thy back. Thy damnation slumbereth not. By reason of such Christians it is that the holy name of Christ is blasphemed. Such as thou they are, that cause the very savages in the _Indian_ woods to cry out, “_Christian_ much drunk, _Christian_ beat men, _Christian_ tell lies, _Devil-Christian_! Me no _Christian_.”

*And so _thou_ wilt direct thy wife and children in the way of salvation!――Woe unto thee, thou Devil-Christian! Woe unto thee thou blind leader of the blind! What wilt thou make them? Two-fold more the children of hell than thyself? Be ashamed, blush, if thou canst blush. Hide thy face. Lay thee in the dust. Out of the deep cry unto God, if haply he may hear thy voice. Instantly smite upon thy breast. Who knoweth but God may take thee out of the belly of hell?

*5. “But you are not one of these. You fear God, and labour to have a conscience void of offence. And it is from a principle of _conscience_, that you restrain your wife and children from hearing _false doctrine_.” But how do you know it is false doctrine? Have you heard for yourself? Or, if you have not heard, have you carefully read what we have occasionally answered for ourselves? A man of conscience cannot condemn any one unheard. This is not common humanity. Nor will he refrain from hearing what _may be_ the truth, for no better reason than fear of his reputation. Pray observe, I do not say, every man (or any man) is obliged in conscience to hear us. But I do say, every man in _England_ who condemns us, is obliged to hear us first. This is only common justice, such as is not denied to a thief or a murderer. Take your choice therefore. Either hear us, or condemn us not. Either speak nothing at all, or hear before you speak.

But suppose you have both read and heard _more than you like_: Did you read and hear fairly? Was not you loaden with prejudice? Did you not read or hear, _expecting no good_; perhaps desiring to find fault? If so, what wonder you judge as you do? What a poor mock-trial is this? You had decided the cause in your own breast, before you heard one word of the evidence. And still do _you_ talk of acting out of conscience? Yea, a conscience void of offence?

*We will put the case farther yet. Suppose your censure was just, and this was actually false doctrine. Still every one must give an account of himself to God: and you cannot _force_ the conscience of any one. You cannot _compel_ another, to see as you see. You ought not to attempt it. Reason and persuasion are the only weapons you ought to use, even toward your own wife and children. Nay, and it is impossible to _starve_ them into conviction, or to _beat_ even truth into their head, You may _destroy_ them, in this way, but cannot _convert_ them. Remember what our own poet has said,

“By force beasts act and are by force restrain’d; The human mind by gentle means is gain’d. Thou canst not take, what I refuse to yield: Nor reap the harvest, tho’ thou spoilst the field.”

6. Every reasonable man is convinced of this. And perhaps you do not concern yourself so much about the doctrine, but the mischief that is done, “How many poor families are starved, ruined, brought to beggary!” By what? Not by _contributing_ a penny a week (the usual contribution in our societies) and _letting that alone_, when they please, when there is any shadow of reason to suppose they cannot afford it. You will not say, any are brought to beggary by this. Not by gifts to me: for I receive none; save (sometimes) the food I eat. And publick collections are nothing to me. That it may evidently appear they are not, when any such collection is made, to cloathe the poor, or for any other determinate purpose, the money is both received and expended before many witnesses, without ever going through my hands at all. And then likewise all possible regard is had, to the circumstances of those who contribute any thing. And they are told over and over, _if there be a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath_.

But where are all these families that have been brought to beggary? How is it, that none of them is forth-coming? Are they all, _out of town_? Then indeed I am in no danger of clearing myself from _their_ indictment. It is the easiest thing of a thousand, for one at _Newcastle_ to say, that I have beggared him and all his kindred. If one of the long-bearded men on _Tyne_-bridge, were to say so just now, I could not readily confute him. But why will you not bring a few of these to tell me so to my face? I have not found one that would do this yet. They pray, you would have them excused.

I remember a man coming to me with a doleful countenance, putting himself into many lamentable postures, gaping as wide as he could, and pointing to his mouth, as tho’ he would say, “he could not speak.” I enquired of his companion, what was the matter? And was informed, “he had fallen into the hands of the _Turks_, who had used him in a barbarous manner, and cut out his tongue by the roots.” I believed him. But when the man had had a chearful cup, he could find his tongue as well as another. I reflected, how is it that I could so readily believe that tale? The answer was easy, “because it was told of a _Turk_.” My friend, take knowledge of your own case. If you had not first took me for a _Turk_, or something equally bad, you could not so readily have believed that tale!

7. “But can it be, that there is no ground at all for a report, which is in every ones mouth?” I will simply tell you, all the ground which I can conceive. I believe many of those who attend on my ministry, have less of this world’s goods than they had before, or at least, might have had if they did not attend it. This fact I allow; and it may be easily accounted for, in one or other of the following ways.

First, I frequently preach on such texts as these: _Having food and raiment, let us be content therewith. They who desire to be rich, fall into temptation and a snare, and many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where the rust and moth doth corrupt, and where thieves break thro’ and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither rust nor moth doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break thro’ and steal._

Now should any of those who are labouring by all possible means, _to lay up treasure upon earth, feel_ these words, they would not _inlarge their desires as hell_; but be _content with such things as they had_. They then probably might not heap up so much for their heirs, as otherwise they would have done. These would therefore _have less_ than if they had not heard _me_: because they would _grasp at less_.

Secondly, wherever the gospel takes effect, _the foes of a man will be those of his own houshold_. By this means then some who hear and receive it with joy, will be poorer then they were before. Their domestic foes will, in many cases, hinder, embroil, and disturb the course of their affairs. And their relations, who assisted them before, or promised at least so to do, will probably withdraw or deny that assistance, _unless they will be advised by them_. Perhaps their nearest relations: it being no new thing, for parents to disown their children, if _after the way which they call heresy, these worship the |God| of their fathers_. Hence therefore some _have less_, of this world’s goods then they had in times past, either because they _earn less_, or because they _receive less_, from them on whom they depend.

Thirdly, It is written, that _those who received not the mark of the beast, either on their fore-heads, or in their right hands_, either openly or secretly were not permitted _to buy or sell any more_. Now whatever the mystery contained herein may be, I apprehend the plain mark of the beast is wickedness; inward and outward unholiness, whatever is secretly or openly contrary to justice, mercy or truth. And certain it is, the time is ♦well nigh come, when those who have not this mark, can neither buy nor sell, can scarce follow any profession, so as to gain a subsistence thereby. Therefore, many of those who attend on my ministry, are by this means poorer than before. They will not receive the mark of the beast, either on their forehead or in their hand: or if they had received it, before, they rid themselves of it as soon as possible. Some cannot follow their former way of life _at all_; (as pawnbrokers, smugglers, buyers or sellers of uncustomed goods) others cannot follow it _as they did before_. For they cannot oppress, cheat or defraud their neighbour: they cannot lie, or say what they do not mean; they _must_ now speak the truth from their heart. On all these accounts, they _have less_ of this world’s goods; because they _gain less_ than they did before.

♦ “will” replaced with “well”

Fourthly, _all that will live godly in |Christ Jesus| shall suffer persecution_: If in no other way, yet at least in this, that _men will by revilings persecute them; and say all manner of evil against them falsly, for his sake_. One unavoidable effect of this will be, that men whose subsistence depends on their daily labour, will be often in want, for few will care to employ those of so _bad a character_. And even those who did employ them before, perhaps for many years, will employ them no more; so that hereby some may indeed be brought to beggary.

*8. What does this touch _you_? Are _you_ one of those, “who will have nothing to do with those scandalous wretches?” Perhaps you will say, “And who can blame me for it: may I not employ whom I please?” We will weigh this. You employed _A. B._ for several years. By your own account, he was an honest, diligent man. You had no objection to him but his following _this way_. For this reason you turn him off. In a short time, having spent his little all, and having no supply, he wants bread. So does his family too as well as himself. Before he can get into other business to procure it, thro’ want of convenient food to eat, and raiment to put on, he sickens and dies. This is not an imaginary scene. I have known the case; tho’ too late to remedy it.

“And what then?” What then _you_ are a murderer. _O earth, cover not thou his blood!_ No it doth not. _The cry thereof hath entered into the ears of the Lord God of sabbaoth._ And God requireth it at _your_ hands: and will require it in an hour when you think not. For _you_ have as effectually murdered that man, as if you had stabbed him to the heart.

It is not I then who ruin and starve that family; it is _you_; _you_ who call yourself a _protestant_! _You_ who cry out against the _persecuting_ spirit of the _Papists_! Ye fools and blind! What are ye better then they? Why, _Edmund Bonner_ would have _starved_ the hereticks in _prison_: whereas _you starve_ them in their _own houses_.

*And all this time you talk of _liberty of conscience_! Yes, liberty for such a conscience as your own: a conscience _past feeling_; (for sure it had some once) a conscience _seared with a hot iron_. Liberty to serve the devil, according to your poor, hardened conscience, you allow; but not liberty to serve God.

*Nay, and what marvel? Whosoever thou art that readest this, and feelest in thy heart a real desire to serve God, I warn thee, expect no liberty for thy conscience, from him that hath no conscience at all. All ungodly, unthankful, unholy men; all villains of whatever denomination, will have liberty indeed all the world over, as long as their master is _God of this world_. But expect not liberty to worship God in spirit and in truth, to practise pure and undefiled religion (unless the Lord should work a new thing in the earth) from any but those who themselves love and serve God.

9. “However, ’tis plain, you make men idle. And this tends to beggar their families.” This objection having been continually urged for some years, I will trace it from the foundation.

Two or three years after my return from _America_, one Captain _Robert Williams_ of _Bristol_, made affidavit before the (then) mayor of the city, that “it was a common report in _Georgia_, Mr. _Wesley_ took people off from their work and _made them idle_, by preaching so much.”

The fact stood thus: at my first coming to _Savannah_, the generality of the people rose at seven or eight in the morning. And that part of them who were accustomed to work, usually worked till six in the evening. A few of them sometimes worked till seven; which is the time of sun-set there at Midsummer.

I immediately began reading prayers and expounded the second lesson, both in the morning and evening. The morning service began at five, and ended at, or before six: the evening service began at seven.

Now supposing all the grown persons in the town, had been present every morning and evening, would this have _made them idle_? Would they hereby have had _less_, or considerably _more time for working_?

10. The same rule I follow now, both at _London_, _Bristol_ and _Newcastle-upon-Tyne_: concluding the service at every place, winter and summer, before six in the morning: and not ordinarily beginning to preach, till near seven in the evening.

Now do you, who make this objection, work longer, throughout the year, than from six to six? Do you desire, that the generality of people should? Or, can you count them idle, that work so long?

Some few are indeed accustomed to work longer. These I advise, not to come on weekdays. And it is apparent, that they take this advice, unless on some rare and extraordinary occasion.

But I hope, none of _you_ who turn them out of their employment, have the confidence to talk of _my_ making them idle! Do you (as the homely phrase is) cry wh―― first? I admire your cunning; but not your modesty.

So far am I from either _causing_ or _encouraging_ idleness, that an idle person, known to be such, is not suffered to remain in any of our societies; we drive him out, as we would a thief or a murderer. “To shew all possible diligence,” (as well as frugality) is one of our standing rules: and one, concerning the observance of which, we continually make the strictest enquiry.

11. “But you drive them out of their senses. You _make them mad_.” Nay, then they are idle with a vengeance. This objection therefore being of the utmost importance, deserves our deepest consideration.

And first, I grant, it is my earnest desire to drive all the world, into what you probably call _madness_: (I mean, inward religion) to make them just as _mad_, as _Paul_ was when he was so accounted by _Festus_.

The counting all things on earth but dung and dross, so we may win Christ; the ♦trampling under foot all the pleasures of the world, the seeking no treasure but in heaven; the having no desire of the praise of men, a good character, a fair reputation; the being exceeding glad when men revile us, and persecute us, and say all manner of evil against us falsely; the giving God thanks, when our father and mother forsake us, when we have neither food to eat, nor raiment to put on, nor a friend but what shoots out bitter words, nor a place where to lay our head: this is utter _distraction_ in _your_ account; but in God’s it is sober, rational religion: the genuine fruit, not of a distempered brain, not of a sickly imagination, but _of_ the _power_ of God in the heart, _of_ victorious _love, and of a sound mind_.

♦ “trampleing” replaced with “trampling”

12. I grant, secondly, It is my endeavour to drive all I can, into what _you_ may term another species of _madness_, which is usually preparatory to this, and which I term _repentance_ or _conviction_.

I cannot describe this better than a writer of our own has done. I will therefore transcribe his words.

“When men _feel_ in themselves the heavy burden of sin, see damnation to be the reward of it, and behold with the eye of their mind the horror of hell; they tremble, they quake, and are inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, and cannot but accuse themselves, and open their grief unto Almighty God, and call unto him for mercy. This being done seriously, their mind is so occupied, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation, that all desire of meat and drink is laid apart, and loathsomeness (or loathing) of all worldly things and pleasure cometh in place. So that nothing then liketh them, more than to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour of body to shew themselves weary of life.”

Now what if your wife, or daughter, or acquaintance, after hearing one of these field-preachers, should come and tell you, that they _saw damnation_ before them, and _beheld with the eye of their mind the horror of hell_? What if they should _tremble and quake_, and be so taken up _partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation,_ as _to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour to shew themselves weary of life_; would you scruple to say, that they were _stark mad_? That these fellows had driven them _out of their senses_? And that whatever writer it was, that _talked at this rate_, he was fitter for _Bedlam_ than any other place?

You have overshot yourself now to some purpose. These are the very words of our own church. You may read them, if you are so inclined, in the first part of the _homily on fasting_. And consequently, what you have peremptorily determined to be _mere lunacy and destruction_, is that _repentance unto life_, which, in the judgment both of the church and of St. _Paul_, is _never to be repented of_.

13. I grant, thirdly, that _extraordinary_ circumstances have attended this conviction in some instances. A particular account of these I have frequently given. While the word of God was preached, some persons have dropped down as dead; some have been, as it were, in strong convulsions; some roared aloud, though not with an ♦articulate voice; and others spoke the anguish of their souls.

♦ “articlute” replaced with “articulate”

This, I suppose, you believe to be perfect madness. But it is easily accounted for, either on principles of reason or scripture.

First, on principles of reason. For how easy is it to suppose, that a strong, lively and sudden apprehension of the heinousness of sin, the wrath of God, and the bitter pains of eternal death, should affect the body as well as the soul, during the present laws of vital union; should interrupt or disturb the ordinary circulations, and put nature out of its course? Yea, we may question, whether while this union subsists, it be possible for the mind to be affected, in so violent a degree, without some or other of those bodily symptoms following?

It is likewise easy to account for these things, on principles of scripture. For when we take a view of them in this light, we are to add to the consideration of natural causes, the agency of those spirits who still excel in strength, and as far as they have leave from God, will not fail to torment whom they cannot destroy; to _tear_ those _that are coming_ to Christ. It is also remarkable, that there is plain scripture precedent of every symptom which has lately appeared. So that we cannot allow even the _conviction_ attended with these to be _madness_, without giving up both reason and scripture.

*14. I grant, fourthly, That touches of extravagance, bordering on madness may sometime attend severe conviction. And this also is easy to be accounted for, by the present laws of the animal œconomy. For we know, fear or grief, from a temporal cause, may occasion a fever and thereby a delirium.

It is not strange then that some, while under strong impressions of grief or fear, from a sense of the wrath of God, should for a season _forget_ almost all things else, and scarce be able to answer a common question: that some should _fancy_ they see the flames of hell, or the devil and his angels around them: or that others, for a space, should be _afraid_, like _Cain, whosoever meeteth me will slay me_. All these, and whatever less common effects may sometimes accompany this conviction, are easily known from the natural distemper of madness, were it only by this one circumstance, that whenever the person convinced tastes the pardoning love of God, they all vanish away in a moment.

Lastly, I have seen one instance (I pray God I may see no more such!) of real, lasting madness.

Two or three years since, I took one with me to _Bristol_, who was under deep convictions; but of as sound an understanding in all respects, as ever he had been in his life. I went a short journey, and when I came to _Bristol_ again, found him really distracted. I enquired particularly, at what time and place, and in what manner this disorder began? And I believe there are, at least, threescore witnesses, alive, and ready to testify what follows. When I went from _Bristol_, he contracted an acquaintance with some persons, who were not of the same judgment with me. He was soon prejudiced against me: quickly after, when our society were met together in _Kingswood-house_, he began a vehement invective both against my person and doctrines. In the midst of this, he was struck raving mad. And so he continued till his friends put him into _bedlam_: and probably, laid _his_ madness too to _my_ charge.

15. I fear, there may also be some instances of real madness, proceeding from a different cause.

Suppose, for instance, a person, hearing me, is strongly convinced, that a liar cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. He comes home, and relates this to his parents or friends, and appears to be very uneasy. These _good Christians_ are disturbed at this, and afraid he is running mad too. They are resolved, he shall never hear any of those fellows more; and keep to it in spite of all his intreaties. They will not suffer him, when at home, to be alone, for fear he should read or pray. And perhaps in a while they will constrain him, at least by repeated importunities, to do again the very thing, for which he was convinced the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience.

What is the event of this? Sometimes the Spirit of God is quenched and departs from him. Now you have carried the point. The man is easy as ever, and sins on without any remorse. But in other instances, where those convictions sink deep, and the arrows of the Almighty stick fast in the soul, you will drive the person into real, settled madness, before you can quench the Spirit of God. I am afraid, there have been several instances of this. You have forced the man’s conscience, till he is stark mad. But then, pray do not impute that madness to me. Had you left him to my direction, or rather to the direction of the Spirit of God, he would have been filled with love and a sound mind. But you have taken the matter out of God’s hand. And now you have brought it to a fair conclusion!

16. How frequent this case may be, I know not. But doubtless most of those who make this objection, of our driving men mad, have never met with such an instance in their lives. The common cry is occasioned, either by those who are _convinced_ of sin, or those who are inwardly _converted_ to God: mere madness both (as was observed before) to those who are without God in the world. Yet I do not deny, but you may have seen one in _bedlam_, who _said_ he had followed _me_. But observe, a madman’s saying this, is no proof of the fact: nay, and if he really had, it should be farther considered, that his being in _bedlam_, is no sure proof of his being mad. Witness the well-known case of Mr. _Periam_; and I doubt more such are to be found. Yea, it is well if some have not been sent thither, for no other reason, but because they followed _me_: their kind relations either concluding, that they must be distracted, before they could do this: or, perhaps hoping, that _bedlam_ would _make_ them mad, if it did not _find_ them so.

*17. And it must be owned, a confinement of such a sort, is as fit to _cause_ as to _cure_ distraction. For what scene of distress is to be compared to it? To be separated at once from all who are near and dear to you; to be cut off from all reasonable conversation, to be secluded from all business, from all reading, from every innocent entertainment of the mind, which is left to prey wholly upon itself, and day and night to pore over your misfortunes: to be shut up day by day in a gloomy cell, with only the walls to employ your heavy eyes, in the midst either of melancholy silence, or horrid cries, groans and laughter intermixt: to be forced by the main strength of those

“Who laugh at human nature and compassion,”

to take drenches of nauseous, perhaps torturing medicines, which you know you have no need of now, but know not how soon you may, possibly by the operation of these very drugs on a weak and tender constitution: here is distress! It is an astonishing thing, a signal proof of the power of God, if any creature who has his senses when the confinement begins, does not lose them, before it is at an end!

How must it heighten the distress, if such a poor wretch, being deeply convinced of sin, and growing worse and worse (as he probably will, seeing there is no medicine here for _his_ sickness, no such physician as his case requires) be soon placed among _the incurables_! Can imagination itself paint such a hell upon earth? Where even “hope never comes, that comes to all!”――For what remedy? If a man of sense and humanity, should happen to visit that house of woe, would he give the hearing to a madman’s tale? Or if he did, would he credit it? “Do we not know, might he say, how well any of these will talk in their lucid intervals?” So that a thousand to one he would concern himself no more about it, but leave the weary to wait for rest in the grave!

18. I have now answered most of the current objections, particularly such as have appeared of weight to religious or reasonable men. I have endeavoured to shew, first, That the doctrines I teach are no other than the great truths of the gospel. 2. That though I teach them, not as I would, but as I _can_, yet it is in a _manner_ not contrary to law: And 3. That the _effects_ of thus preaching the gospel, have not been such as was weakly or wickedly reported: those reports being mere artifices of the devil, to hinder the work of God. Whosoever therefore ye are, who look for God to _revive his work in the midst of the years_, cry aloud, that he may _finish_ it nevertheless, may _cut it short in righteousness_. Cry to _Messiah the Prince_, that he may soon _end the transgression_, that he may _lift up his standard_ upon earth, sending by whom he will send, and working his own work, when he pleaseth, and as he pleaseth, till _all the kindreds of the people worship before him_, and the earth _be full of the knowledge of the glory of the |Lord|_!

_December 22, 1744._

* * * * *

_An_ ACT _of_ DEVOTION.

1 BEHOLD the servant of the Lord! I wait thy guiding eye to feel, To hear, and keep thine every word, To prove, and do thy perfect will: Joyful from all my works to cease, Glad to fulfil all righteousness.

2 Me if thy grace vouchsafe to use, Meanest of all thy creatures me, The deed, the time, the manner chuse; Let all my fruit be found of thee; Let all my works in thee be wrought, By thee to full perfection brought.

3 My every weak, though good design, O’er-rule, or change as seems thee meet; Jesus, let all the work be thine; Thy work, O Lord, is all-compleat, And pleasing in thy Father’s sight; Thou only hast done all things right.

4 Here then to thee thine own I leave, Mould as thou wilt the passive clay; But let me all thy stamp receive, But let me all thy words obey; Serve with a single heart and eye, And to thy glory live and die.

The _End_ of the _Fourteenth Volume_.