Chapter V: Part 5

_What led you into such loose notions of church-communion, I imagine, might be, your being conscious to yourself, that according to the strict, just account of the church of_ England, _you could not with any grace maintain your pretensions to belong still to her_.――――Sir, I have never told you yet, what my notions of the church-communion are. They may be wrong, or they may be right, for all you know. Therefore, when you are first supposing that I have told you my notions, and then assigning the reasons of them, what can be said, but that you imagine the whole matter?

3. How far I have _acted agreeably to the rules and orders_ of our church, is a farther question. You think I have acted contrary thereto, first, By using _extemporary prayer_ in public. _The church_, you say, _has strongly declared her mind on this point, by appointing her excellent liturgy, which you have solemnly promised to use――――and no other_.――――I know not when or where.――――_And whoever――――does not worship God in the manner she prescribes――――must be supposed to slight and contemn her offices and rules: and therefore can be no more worthy to be called her minister._ (page 7.)

I do not _slight or contemn the offices_ of the church. I esteem them very highly. And yet I do not, at all times, worship God, even in public, in the very terms of those offices. Nor yet do I knowingly _slight or contemn her rules_. For it is not clear to my apprehension, that she has any rule which forbids using extemporary prayer, suppose between the morning and evening service. And if I am _not worthy to be called her minister_ (which I dare by no means affirm myself to be) yet _her minister I am_, and must always be, unless I should be judicially deposed from my ministry.

Your second argument is this. “If you suppose the scripture enjoins you to use extemporary prayer, then you must suppose our liturgy to be inconsistent with scripture, and consequently unlawful to be used.” That does not follow: unless I supposed the scripture to enjoin, to use extemporary prayer, _and no other_. Then it would follow, that a form of prayer was inconsistent with scripture. But this I never did suppose.

Your third argument is to this effect; “You act contrary to the rule of the church. Allow she in the wrong: yet while you break her rule, how do you act as her minister?” It ought to be expressed, _how are you her minister?_ For the conclusion to be proved is, That I am not her minister.

I answer, 1. I am not convinced, as I observed before, that I do hereby _break her rule_. 2. If I did, yet should I not _cease_ to be her minister, unless I were formally _deprived_. 3. I now _actually do_ continue in her communion, and hope that I always shall.

4. You object farther, “That I disobey the governors of the church.” I answer, I both do, and will obey them in all things, where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary. ――――_Here_, you say, _you confess that in some things you do not, and cannot obey your governors_ (page 8.)――――Did I _confess this_? Then I spoke rashly and foolishly: for I granted more than I can make good.――――I do certainly apprehend, that the law of God requires me, both to preach and (sometimes) to pray _extempore_. Yet I do not know that I disobey the governors of the church herein. For I do not know, that they have forbidden me to do either.

But your _♦behaviour and method of teaching is irregular.――――Have you any warrant from scripture for preaching_ up and down thus?――――I think I have: I think God hath called me to this work _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_.

♦ “hehaviour” replaced with “behaviour”

_But we ought to do this agreeably to our respective situations, and not break in upon each other’s provinces.――――Every private man may take upon himself the office of a magistrate――――and quote this text as justly as you have done_, (page 9.) No. The private man is not called to the office of a _magistrate_; but I am to the office of a _preacher_. ――――_You was indeed authorized to preach the gospel: but it was in the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed.――――Whereas you have many years preached in places whereunto you was not lawfully appointed; nay, which were intrusted to others, who neither wanted nor desired your assistance._

Many of them wanted it enough, whether they desired it or no. But I shall not now debate that point. I rather follow you to the ♦Part of the _Farther Appeal_, where this objection is considered.

♦ “first” replaced with “Part” per Errata

5. “Our church (it was said) has provided against this preaching up and down, in the ordination of a priest, by _expresly limiting_ the exercise of the powers then conferred upon him, to the _congregation_ where he shall be lawfully ♦appointed thereunto.”

♦ “appoined” replaced with “appointed”

I answered, 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 administer the sacrament in any other than his own congregation.” _Farther Appeal_, page 84.

You reply, _Is there no difference between a thing’s being done occasionally――――and its being done for years together_?――――Yes a great one. And more inconveniencies may arise from the latter than from the former. But this is all wide: it does not touch the point. Still if our church does _expresly limit_ the exercise of the sacerdotal powers, to _that congregation_ whereunto each priest shall be appointed; this precludes him from exercising those powers _at all_, in any other than _that congregation_.

I answered, 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.’”

You reply, “I presume it was expected you should either continue at your college, or enter upon some regular cure.”――――Perhaps so; but I must still insist, that if my sacerdotal powers had been then _expresly limited_ to _that congregation_ whereunto I should be _appointed_, my ordination would have _signified nothing_. I mean, I could never, in virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all: seeing I never was appointed to any single congregation: at least, not till I went to _Georgia_.

I answered, 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 _Glocestershire_ or _Worcestershire_: in _Lancashire_, _Yorkshire_, or _Lincolnshire_. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.”

You reply, _There is great difference between preaching occasionally ――――with the leave of the incumbent, and doing it constantly without their leave_. I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter, which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this head. They do not in the least affect this consequence, “If every priest, when ordained, is _expresly limited_, touching the exercise of the power then received, to _that congregation_ to which he shall be appointed; then is he precluded by this _express limitation_, from preaching, with or without the incumbent’s leave, in _any other congregation_ whatever.”

I answered, 4. “Is it not, in fact, universally allowed, that every priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, to preach ――――in any congregation, where the curate desires his assistance?”

You reply to this by what you judge a ♦parallel case. But it does not touch the _restriction_ in question. Either this does, or does not _expresly limit_ the exercise of the powers conferred upon a priest in his ordination, to _that congregation_ whereunto he shall be appointed. If it does not, I am not condemned by this; however faulty I may be on a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every priest condemned who ever preaches out of the _congregation to which he is appointed_.

♦ “parellel” replaced with “parallel”

Your parallel case is this――――_Because a man does not offend against the law of the land, when I prevail upon him to teach my children_. ――――Therefore _he is impowered to seize_ (read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing) _an apartment in my house, and against my will and approbation to continue therein, and to direct and dictate to my family_! page 11.

An exact parallel indeed!――――When therefore I came to live in St. _Luke_’s parish, was it just the same thing as if I had _seized an apartment in Dr._ Buckley’s _house_? And was the _continuing therein against his will and approbation_ (supposing it were so) precisely the same, as if I had continued _in his house_, whether he would or no? Is the one exactly the same _offence against the law of the land_ as the other? Once more. Is the warning _sinners_ in _Moorfields_, to flee from the wrath to come, the very same with directing the Dr.’s _family, under his own roof_?――――I should not have answered this, but that I was afraid you would conclude, it was unanswerable.

I answered the former objector, 5. “Before those words which you suppose to imply such a restraint――――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.”

You reply, _The question is not, whether you are in orders, or not_? page 12.――――I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was.――――_But whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the church of_ England.――――Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly to be interpreted, of preaching only in a single congregation. But I have given my reasons, why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated.

I would only add, If I am in orders, if I am a minister still, and yet not a minister of the church of _England_, of what church am I a minister? Whoever is a minister at all, is a minister of some particular church. Neither can he cease to be a minister of that church, till he is cast out of it by a judicial sentence. Till therefore I am so cast out (which I trust will never be) I must stile myself, a minister of the church of _England_.

6. Your next objection is, _You not only erect bands, which, after the_ Moravians, _you call the united society_, but also _give out tickets to those that continue therein_.――――These bands, you think, _have had very bad consequences――――as was to be expected――――when weak people――――are made leaders――――of their brethren, and are set upon expounding scripture_.――――Ibid.

You are in some mistakes here. For, 1. _The bands_ are not called _the united society_. 2. The _united society_ was originally so called, not after the _Moravians_, but because it consisted of several smaller societies _united together_. 3. Neither the bands, nor the leaders of them, as such, are _set upon expounding scripture_. 4. The good consequences of their meeting together _in bands_, I know: but the _very bad consequences_ I know not.

When any members of these, or of the _united society_, are proved to live in known sin, we then mark and avoid them; we separate ourselves from every one that walks disorderly. Sometimes, if the case be judged infectious (though rarely) this is openly declared. And this you stile _excommunication_, and say, _Does not every one see a separate ecclesiastical society or communion?_ page 13.――――No. This society does not _separate_ from the _communion_ of the rest of the church of _England_. They _continue stedfastly_ with them, both _in the apostolical doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers_ (which neither Mr. _St._ nor Mr. _Si._ does: nor the gentleman who writes to you in favour of the _Moravians_: who also writes pressingly to me, to _separate_ myself from the church) a society _over which you had appointed yourself a governor_.――――No; so far as I governed them, it was at their own intreaty.――――_And took upon you all the spiritual authority, which the very highest church governor could claim._――――What! at _Kingswood_? In _February 1740‒1_? Not so. I took upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any steward of a society exerts by the consent of the other members. I did neither more nor less than declare, that they who had broken our rules, were no longer of our society.

_Can you pretend that you received this authority from our church?_ ――――Not by ordination; for I did not exert it as a _priest_: but as one whom that society had voluntarily chosen to be at the head of them.――――_Or that you exercised it in subjection, or subordination to her lawful governors?_――――I think so; I am sure I did not exercise it in any designed opposition to them.――――_Did you ever think proper to consult or advise with them, about fixing the terms of your communion?_――――If you mean, about fixing the rules of admitting or excluding from our society: I never did think it either needful or proper. Nor do I, at this day.

_How then will you vindicate all these powers?――――All these_ are, “Declaring those are no longer of our society.” _Here is a manifest congregation. Either it belonged to the church of_ England, _or not.――――If it did not――――you set up a separate communion against her. And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from her?_――――I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false. Therefore the consequent falls of course.――――_If it did belong to the church, shew where the church gave you such authority of controuling and regulating it?_――――Authority of putting disorderly members out of that society? The society itself gave me that authority. _What private clergyman can plead her commission, to be thus a judge and ordinary, even in his own parish?_――――Any clergyman or layman, without pleading her commission, may be thus a judge and ordinary. _Are not these powers inherent in her governors, and committed to the higher order of her clergy?_――――No; not the power of excluding members from a private society,――――unless on supposition of some such rule as ours is, viz. “That if any man separate from the church, he is no longer a member of our society.”

7. But you have more proof yet. _The grand jury in_ Georgia _found, that you had called yourself ordinary of_ Savannah. _Nor was this fact contradicted even by those of the jury, who you say wrote in your favour. So that it appears, you have long had an inclination, to be independent and uncontrouled._――――This argument ought to be good; for it is far fetched. The plain case was this. That grand jury did assert, “That in Mr. _Causton_’s hearing, I had called myself ordinary of _Savannah_.” The minority of the jury, in their letter to the trustees, refuted the other allegations particularly: but thought this so idle an one, that they did not deign to give it any farther reply, than

“As to the eighth bill we are in doubt, as not well knowing the meaning of the word _ordinary_.” See 1 Journal, pages 47, 49.

You add, _I appeal to any reasonable man, whether you have not acted as an_ ordinary; _nay, a_ bishop _in_ Kingswood.――――If you mean, in “declaring those disorderly members were no longer of that society.” I admit your appeal, whether I therein acted as a _bishop_, or as any _steward_ of a society may. _Nay, you have gone far beyond the generality of the dissenters themselves; who do not commit the power of excommunication (and ♦appointing to preach_――――that is another question) _to the hands of any private minister_.――――The _powers of excommunication._――――True; but this was not _excommunication_, but a quite different thing.

♦ “appointed” replaced with “appointing” per Errata

How far, in what circumstances, and in what sense, I have _appointed men to preach_, I have explained at large in the third part of the _Farther Appeal_. But I wait for farther light; and am ready to consider, as I am able, whatever shall be replied to what is there advanced.

8. Your general conclusion is, _Whatever your pretences or professions may be, you can be looked upon by serious and impartial persons, (not as a_ member, _much less a_ minister _of the church of_ England,) _but as no other than an enemy to her constitution, worship and doctrine, raising divisions and disturbances in her communion_, (page 76.) ――――_And yet you say――――“I cannot have greater regard to her rules”――――“I dare not renounce communion with her.”_ (page 15.)

* I do say so still. I cannot have a greater regard to any _human 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

If you had pleased, you might have added from the next paragraph, “Returning to _J. H._ we found his voice was lost, and his body weak as that of an infant. But his soul was in peace, full of love, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God.”

You subjoin, _this you may desire for ought I know, to pass as a trifle too_. (page 134.) No: it is so terrible an instance of the judgment of God, (tho’ at length _mercy rejoiced over judgment_) as ought never to be forgotten by those who fear God, so long as the sun or moon endureth.

7. The account of people falling down in fits you cite as a fifth instance of my enthusiasm: it being _plain_, you say, that I _look upon both the disorders, and the removals of them to be supernatural_. (page 67.) I answered, “It is not quite plain. I look upon some of these cases, as wholly natural: on the rest, as mixt: both the disorders and the removals, being partly natural and partly not.” (page 43.) You reply, _It would have been kind, to have let us know your rule, by which you distinguish these_.――――I will. I distinguish them, by the circumstances, that precede, accompany, and follow. _However some of these you here allow, to be in part, supernatural. Miracles therefore are not wholly ceased._ Can you prove they are? By scripture, or reason?――――You then refer to two or three cases related in the 42d and 43d pages of the third journal. I believe there was a _supernatural_ power, on the minds of the persons there mentioned, which occasioned their bodies to be so affected by the _natural_ laws of the vital union. This point therefore you have to prove, or here is no enthusiasm; that there was no _supernatural_ power in the case.

Hereon you remarked, _You leave no room to doubt that you would have these cases considered, as those of the demoniacks in the new Testament, in order, I suppose, to parallel your supposed cures of them, with those highest miracles of Christ and his disciples, the casting out devils_――――(Remarks, page 68.) I answered, “I should once have wondered at your making such a supposition. But I now wonder at nothing of the kind.” You reply, _Why so? What have I done lately, to take off your surprize? Have I forfeited my character for ingenuous and fair dealing with you?_ (2d Letter, page 135.) Since you ask me the question, I will answer it (I hope, in love and in the spirit of meekness.) I scarce know, of all who have wrote against me, a less ingenuous dealer: or one who has shewn a more steady, invariable disposition, to put an ill construction on whatever I say.

_But why would you not particularly explain these cases?_――――I will explain myself upon them once for all. For more than three hundred years after Christ, you know demoniacks were common in the church: and I suppose, ♦you are not unapprised, that during this period, ♠(if not much longer) they were continually relieved by the prayers of the faithful. Nor can I doubt, but demoniacks will remain, so long as Satan is the _God of this world_. I doubt not, but there are such at this day. And I believe _John Haydon_ was one. But of whatever sort his disorder was, that it was removed by prayer is undeniable. Now, Sir, you have only two points to prove, and then your argument will be conclusive. 1. That to think or say, “There are _demoniacks_ now, and they are now relieved by prayer,” is enthusiasm: 2. That to say “_Demoniacks_ were or are relieved, on prayer made by _Cyprian_, or their parish-minister,” is _to parallel_ the actions of _Cyprian_, or that minister, _with the highest miracles of Christ and his disciples_.”

♦ remove the word “that” per Errata

♠ “if)” replaced with “(if”

8. You remarked, _It will be difficult to persuade any sober person, that there is any thing supernatural in these disorders_, Remarks, page 69. The remainder of that paragraph I abridged thus. You attempt to account for those fits, by _obstructions_ or _irregularities of the blood and spirits; hysterical disorders; watchings, fastings; closeness of rooms, great crouds, violent heat_. And lastly by _terrors, perplexities and doubts, in weak and well-meaning men; which_ you think _in many of the cases before us, have quite overset their understandings_, Remarks, page 43.

I answered, “As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go. [Let it be supposed to have _some_ influence in _some_ cases; perhaps, _fully to account for_ one in a thousand.] But I require proof of the last way, whereby you would account for these disorders.”――――Why, _the instances_, you say, of _religious madness have much increased, since you began to disturb the world_.――――“I doubt the fact.”――――You reply, _This no way disproves it_, page 137.――――Yes it does, till you produce some proof. For a bare negation is the proper and sufficient answer to a bare affirmation. I add, “If these instances had increased daily, ’tis easy to account for them another way,” (as is done in the first part of the _Farther Appeal_, at the 101st and following pages.) You say, _Most have heard of or known, several of the_ Methodists, _thus driven to distraction_: I answered, “_You_ may have _heard_ of five hundred. But how many have you _known_? Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them, no, not one of them to this day, either man, woman, or child,” page 44. You reply, “_This_ (the naming them) _would be very improper and unnecessary_, page 138.” However, Sir, it is extremely necessary, that you should name them to me in private, I will then, if required, excuse you to the public; which till then I cannot do.

The person I mentioned whom you _threw_ into much _doubt_ and _perplexity_, then lived in the parish of St. _Ann, Westminster_. I related the case just as she related it to me. But she is able and ready to answer for herself.

9. You go on. It _is the most charitable supposition we can make, that many of the cases you have mentioned in your journals, and some of which have been represented above, are of this kind_, i. e. instances of madness,――――2d Letter, page 138. O tender charity! But cannot your charity reach one hair’s breadth farther than this?――――No: for _otherwise_ [_i. e._ if those persons were not mad] _the presumption and despair are terrible indeed_.――――But what if you were to suppose _John Haydon_ (to instance in one) was not mad, but under a temporary possession? And that others were deeply convinced of sin, and of the wrath of God abiding on them? I should think this supposition (be it true or false) was full as _charitable_ as the other.

I said, “I cannot find one such instance to this day.” You reply, _Yet once you could not but be under some “Concern, with regard to one or two persons, who_ seemed _to be indeed_ lunatic, _as well as sore vexed_”.――――“So they _seemed_: but it soon appeared, they _were not_.” The very next paragraph mentions, that one of these within a few hours, was “filled with the spirit of love, and of a sound mind.” _Journal 3._ page 88.

But you are resolved, come what will, to carry this point: and so add, _Toward the end of your Farther Appeal_, [the first part, page 101.] You say, “_You have seen one instance of real, lasting madness. This was one whom you took with you to_ Bristol, _who was afterwards prejudiced against you, and began a vehement ♦invective both against your person and doctrines. In the midst of this he was struck raving mad._” Add, “And so he continued till his friends put him into _Bedlam_: and probably laid _his_ madness to _my_ charge.”――――If they did not, it is now done to their hands.

♦ “invection” replaced with “invective” per Errata

10. _As to the cure of these fits, I observed_ (so you, page 139. proceed) _that you had frequently represented them as miraculous, as the instantaneous consequences of your prayers_.――――My former answer to this was, “I have set down the facts just as they were, passing no judgment upon them myself, and leaving every man else to judge as he pleases.”

I am glad you give me an occasion of reviewing this answer; for upon reflection, I do not like it at all. It grants you more than I can in conscience do. As it can be proved by abundance of witnesses, that these cures were frequently, (indeed almost always) the _instantaneous_ consequences of prayer; your inference is just. I cannot, dare not affirm, that they were purely _natural_. I believe they were not. I believe many of them were wrought by the _supernatural_ power of God. That of _John Haydon_ in particular: (I fix on this, and will join issue with you upon it when you please) and yet this is not _bare-faced enthusiasm_. Nor can you prove it any _enthusiasm_ at all, unless you can prove, that this is _falsely_ ascribed to a _supernatural_ power.

_The next case_, you say, _relates to the spotted fever, which you represent as being extremely mortal; but――――you believe there was not one with whom you were but recovered. I allowed, that here is no intimation of any thing miraculous_ (_Remarks_ page 72.) _You ask_, (Answer, page 45.) “_Why then is this cited as an instance of my enthusiasm?”――――You sure cannot think, that false pretences to miracles are the_ whole _of enthusiasm_. No; but I think they are _that part_ of enthusiasm, which you here undertook to prove upon me. You are here to prove, that I _boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer, without the use of any other means_. (Remarks, page 71.) But if _there is no intimation_ in my account _of any thing miraculous, or that proper remedies had not been applied_: how is this a proof, that I _boast of curing bodily distempers, without applying_ any _remedies_ at all?