66

will say it is impossible. Or that the Spirit of God should cease to bear this witness? Neither can the possibility of this be denied. The thing, then, which is supposed impossible is this, that a man who once had it should ever doubt, whether he had it or no; that is, (as you subjoin,) " if he continue sound in mind" (or understanding) "and memory." Right! "If he continue:" But the very supposition is, that, in this respect, he does not continue so. While he did so continue, he could not doubt. But his understanding is now darkened, and the very traces of that divine work well-nigh erased out of his memory. Nor can I think, "it is vain to have recourse here to the EVEрysia of the power of darkness." I verily believe, as it was ενεργεια the God of heaven who once shone in his heart, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God; so it is the god of this world who hath now blinded his heart, so that the glorious light cannot shine upon it.

6. If the Quakers hold the same perceptible inspiration with me, I am glad; and it is neither better nor worse for their holding it; although, if I “distinguish it away," I do not hold it at all. But do I distinguish it away? or any point which I believe to be the truth of God? I am not conscious of this. But when men tack absurdities to the truth of God, with which it hath nothing to do, I distinguish away those absurdities, and let the truth remain in its native purity.

It was several months before my correspondence with you, that I thus distinguished away perceptible inspiration; declaring to all men, "by perceiving or feeling the operations of the Spirit, I mean, being inwardly conscious of them." "By the operations of the Spirit, I do not mean the manner in which he operates in a Christian."

This I mentioned in my last. But it is certain, over and above those other graces which the Holy Spirit inspires into, or operates in, a Christian, and over and above his imperceptible influences; I do intend all mankind should understand me to assert, (what I therefore express in the clearest language I am master of,) every Christian believer hath a perceptible testimony of the Spirit, that he is a child of God. I use the phrase, testimony of the Spirit, rather than inspiration, because it has a more determinate meaning. And I desire men to know what I mean, and what I do not; that I may not fight as one that beateth the air.

7. Is there "not one word said of this, either in the 'Farther Appeal,' or in any one place in the Bible?" I think there is in the Bible; in the sixteenth verse of the eighth chapter to the Romans. And is not this very place proved to describe the ordinary privilege of every Christian believer, in the "Farther Appeal," from the forty-fifth to the forty-ninth, and from the fifty-sixth to the fifty-ninth, page? *

Give me leave to remind you of some of the words. In the forty-ninth page the argument concludes thus: "It will follow, that this witness of the Spirit is the private testimony given to our own consciences, which, consequently, all sober Christians may claim, without any danger of enthusiasm." In the fiftyseventh page are these words: "Every one that is born of God, and doth not commit sin, by his very actions, saith, ‘Our Father, which art in heaven; the Spirit itself bearing witness with their spirit, that they are the children of God. According to Origen, therefore, this testimony of the Spirit is not any public testimony by miracles, but an inward testimony belonging in common to all that are born of God." Once more: In the fifty-eighth page are these words: "He brings yet another proof of the superiority of those who had this Spirit of adoption: The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. I prove this,' says he, not only from the voice itself, but also from the cause whence that voice proceeds. For the Spirit suggests the words while we thus speak, which he hath elsewhere expressed more plainly, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father! But what is, The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit?' He means the Paraclete by the gift given unto us." (But that this was an extraordinary gift, we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after.) "And when the Spirit beareth witness, what doubt is left? If a man or an angel spake, some might doubt; but when the Most High beareth witness to us, who can doubt any longer?"

6

I am mistaken if this does not come home to the point, to the question now before us; describing a perceptible testimony of the Holy Ghost, "directly felt to be worked by himself."

8. But I will wave all authorities, that of Origen and Chrysostom, as well as of Hannah Richardson (though not a weak woman, but eminently the reverse) and Averel Spencer (though

* Vol. VIII., p. 83-87, and 93-95, of the present edition.-EDIT.

not a wicked one); only observing, that your argument proves too much. I am as fully assured to-day, as I am of the shining of the sun, that the Scriptures are of God. I cannot possibly deny or doubt of it now; yet I may doubt of it to-morrow; as I have done heretofore a thousand times, and that after the fullest assurance preceding. Now, if this be "a demonstration that my former assurance was a mere fancy," then farewell all

revelation at once!

But to come closer yet, and weigh the point in debate in the balance of plain reason: You must allow there is a testimony of the Spirit with our spirit, that we are the children of God. "But," you say, "it is not a perceptible one." How is this? Let us examine it throughly. It is allowed, (1.) The Spirit of God, (2.) Bears testimony to my spirit, (3.) That I am a child of God. But I am not to perceive it. Not to perceive what? the first, second, or third particular? Am I not to perceive what is testified,—that I am a child of God? Then it is not testified at all. This is saying and unsaying in the same breath. Or am I not to perceive, that it is testified to my spirit? Yea, but I must perceive what passes in my own soul. Or, lastly, am I to perceive that I am a child of God, and that this is testified to my spirit; but not to perceive who it is that testifies, not to know it is the Spirit of God? O Sir, if there really be a man in the world who hath this testimony in himself, can it be supposed that he does not know who it is that testifies? who it is that speaks to his heart? that speaks in his inmost soul as never man spake? If he does not, he is ignorant of the whole affair. If you are in this state, I pray God you may say from the heart,"Lord, what I know not, teach thou me." How much better were this, than to canonize your own ignorance, as the only knowledge and wisdom; and to condemn all the generation of God's children of "idiotism and madness!"

9. Under your last head, you do not confine yourself now within the bounds you at first proposed; when you said, “I am not making conjectures of what may happen, but relating mischiefs which actually have happened." Take care you do not grow warm when I reply to this; you will have need of all your patience to bear it.

You begin: "Will you ask what I mean by order? Was it not manifest I meant to speak against lay-preaching?" It was: But not against that alone. Therefore, before I entered

upon the question, I defined the term in a wider sense, so as to include both this and every irregularity you had objected. You go on: "How could you give so strange an answer, I bring this order you contend for into places where it never was before?"" I reply, This is not my whole answer; it is but one, and that the most inconsiderable, part of it: But it is strictly true. "Do you then bring in the ministry of regularly ordained Ministers, where, before, people were used to the preaching of lay brethren ?" Yes; them who were before used to no preaching at all, or to that of those whom you would term lay brethren, I bring to attend on the ministry of those regular Preachers who have the charge of their several parishes.

But very "ill consequences" of our irregular preaching, you say, have "actually happened: A number of unsent persons going about the kingdom, and preaching the worst of heresies." A number! Where? Within these nine years past, I have heard of two, and no more, (besides that lunatic Clergyman,) who have gone about thus, though I doubt sent neither of God for man. But I have heard of no heresy which they preached; only a little smooth, undigested nonsense. Nor can the ill done by these balance the thousandth part of the good already done by the preaching of other laymen; viz., the turning so many bold, barefaced servants of the devil, into humble, holy servants of God.

However, evil "will happen if any State faction shall join the irregulars." If they shall! Yea, if they shall attempt it, (which is far enough off,) the irregulars will not join them. We bless God that the Government is at present very fully convinced of this.

"But if unsent, well-meaning laymen may preach, unsent ill-meaning laymen will, upon the first opportunity, spread sedition like wildfire." Yea, and Clergymen as well as laymen, sent as well as unsent. Thus it ever was, and I presume ever will be.

10. That "the irregularities of Mr. Cartwright did more harm in the course of a century, than all the labours of his life did good," is by no means plain to me: And the less so, because I cannot learn from Mr. Strype, or any other impartial writer, (whatever his mistakes in judgment were,) that he fell into any irregularities at all. I look upon him, and the body of Puritans in that age, (to whom the German Anabaptists bore small resemblance,) to have been both the most learned and most pious men that were then in the English nation. Nor did they

separate from the Church; but were driven out, whether they would or no. The vengeance of God which fell on the posterity of their persecutors, I think, is no imputation on Mr. Cartwright or them; but a wonderful scene of divine Providence, visiting the sins of the fathers upon their children, (when they also had filled up the measure of their iniquities,) unto the third and fourth generation.

I am not careful for what may be a hundred years hence. He who governed the world before I was born, shall take care of it likewise when I am dead. My part is to improve the present moment. And, whatever may be the fruits of lay preaching, when you and I are gone to our long home, every serious man has cause to bless God for those he may now see with his eyes; for the saving so many souls from death; and hiding a multitude of sins. The instances glare in the face of the sun. Many indeed God hath taken to himself; but many more remain, both young and old, who now fear God and work righteousness.

11. Perhaps a parallel drawn from physic may hold more exactly than you was apprised of. For more than twenty years I have had numberless proofs that regular Physicians do exceeding little good. From a deep conviction of this, I have believed it my duty, within these four months last past, to prescribe such medicines to six or seven hundred of the poor as I knew were proper for their several disorders. Within six weeks, nine in ten of them who had taken these medicines were remarkably altered for the better; and many were cured of diseases under which they had laboured for ten, twenty, forty years. Now, ought I to have let one of these poor wretches perish, because I was not a regular Physician? to have said, "I know what will cure you: But I am not of the College: You must send for Dr. Mead." Before Dr. Mead had come in his chariot, the man might have been in his coffin. And when the Doctor was come, where was his fee? What! he cannot live upon nothing! So, instead of an orderly cure, the patient dies; and God requires his blood at my hands!

you

12. But think “if one should look out of his grave in the middle of the next century, he would find the orderly preaching at St. Luke's and St. Giles's church had done more good than the disorderly preaching at Kennington." I cannot learn by all the inquiries I have made, that at present it does any good at all; that either Dr. B. or Dr. G. has, in all these