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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 .

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.

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 .

---

Contents