Besides, ought you not to have quoted the passages as they stand in my life, and then every one must see, I was far from acting according to dreams, even in these instances. The first I mentioned because it was a means under God of awakening me in some degree, as I suppose hath been the case of many; and is this a conducting of myself by a dream? As for the second, the case was thus: as I used to visit the prisoners at Oxford, so upon my coming to Gloucester, my compassion for the poor prisoners there, and the hopes I had of being serviceable to them, inclined me to visit them also; for which reason I prayed most earnestly, that God would open a door for me to visit them; quickly after I dreamed that one of the prisoners came to be instructed by me: the dream was impressed much upon my heart. In the morning I went to the door of the goal. This dream was no further a reason of my going thither, than as it was a means of exciting me to pursue the reasonable inclination I had before. And subsequent providences made me afterwards judge, that God directed the dream for that purpose. As to the third, I was so far from being conducted by it, that as I have said in the account I gave of it, which, Gentlemen, you would have done well to have observed, I always checked the impression it made upon me. These are the only dreams I think that are mentioned in any of my writings; and all these are in the account of my life: though you are pleased to say, page 5, “From these pieces [namely my Life, Journals, and Sermons] it is very evident that he used to govern himself by dreams.”
“As plain it is, (you add, page ibid.) that he usually governed himself by some sudden impulses and impressions on his mind, and we have one instance that may satisfy us, that his first setting out upon his itinerant business, was from an enthusiastic turn. Journal from London to Gibraltar, page 3, he says, ‘He will not mention the reasons that persuaded him it was the divine will that he should go abroad, because they might not be deemed good reasons by another;’ but saith, ‘He was as much bent as ever to go, though strongly solicited to the contrary, having asked direction from heaven about it for a year and half.’” And does not this prove, Gentlemen, that I acted cautiously in the affair, and took time to consider of the step I was about to take? and consequently was not governed herein by some sudden impulse or impression on my mind, and without consulting Providence, continuing instant in prayer, and conferring with friends on the occasion, for the space of a year and half, as you well observe? And what if I did not mention “the reasons that persuaded me it was the divine will that I should go abroad, because they might not be deemed good reasons by another.” Does it therefore follow, that I was governed in the affair by impulses and impressions, or that I had no good reasons to give? Besides, Gentlemen, how does it appear that this passage refers to my first setting out upon my itinerant business? I think I mention only going abroad to Georgia, whither I was then bound, and where I intended to settle. At this time I had no thought of being an itinerant. It did not appear to be my duty to set out upon that business, for a considerable time afterwards. How I was induced at length to set out upon it, I may give an account of in a future tract; but till that be published, how can any one fairly determine “whether my first setting out upon this itinerant business, was from an enthusiastical turn or not.”
“Other instances (you say, page ibid.) there are, wherein he shews it to be his custom to attribute any common turn of his mind to a motion of the Holy Spirit upon him, without any more reason than any man may, any recollections of his memory, or sudden suggestion of his own understanding. Such a one you have, Journal from Gibraltar to Savannah, page 3. ‘I went to bed with unusual thoughts and convictions that God would do some great things at Gibraltar.’” But, Gentlemen, if I say, I went to bed with unusual thoughts and convictions, how is this an instance of “my attributing any common turn of my mind to a motion of the Holy Spirit.” You endeavour to prove it further, page 6. by a second passage taken out of another Journal from Savannah to England, page 22. where it is said, “That the lesson before he left Savannah, being St. Paul’s shipwreck: and that before his leaving Charles-Town, being the first of Jonah, made such a deep impression upon him, that he wrote to his friend to acquaint him, he was apprehensive he should have a dangerous voyage; and it happening to be bad weather accordingly, he says, ‘God hath now shewed me wherefore he gave those previous notices.’” But, Gentlemen, how is this an instance of my attributing any common turn of my mind to a motion of the Holy Spirit? Was it a common turn of my mind to have Paul’s shipwreck, and the first of Jonah powerfully pressed upon me? I do not know that it was. But you are pleased to draw this further inference from the quotation, page ibid., “So that every scripture that came to his view, was received as the bath-kol of the Jews, and he plainly shews himself as much directed by this way of finding out the will of God as he calls it, as the old heathens were by their sortes Homericæ Virgilianæ.” But how does this prove, that every scripture that came to my view, was received as the bath-kol, &c. I think I mentioned only the first of Jonah, and the xxviith of Acts: but you say of this, (my receiving every scripture that came to my view as the bath-kol) we have a very full instance, same Journal, page 38, where you “have a particular application of the words which appeared upon the Doctor’s first opening the Common Prayer, ‘The Lord hath visited and redeemed his people’.” But how is this a very full instance, when these words did not appear to my view at all, but to the Doctor’s? It was he that was reading, not I; only as you are pleased to express yourselves, “I wisely observed that so it was, for about eight o’clock the men saw land.” Was there any thing unwise in such an observation? Or was there any thing enthusiastical in saying, that God had visited and redeemed his people, when after we had been pinched with hunger, and almost starved, he was pleased to give us a sight of land?
You proceed, page 6, to lay something more to my charge: “Sometimes he speaks as if he had communications directly from the Spirit of God.” And is it a crime for a believer, and a minister of Jesus, to speak of his having communications directly from the Spirit of God? I thought that was no new thing to the ministers and people in New-England, especially since such a remarkable revival of religion has been vouchsafed unto them. How are believers sealed; or how is the divine life begun and carried on, if there be no such thing as having divine communications directly from the Spirit of God?
Again, (page ibid.) you bring a fresh accusation against me. “Sometimes, and indeed very frequently, he (in a most enthusiastic manner) applies even the historical parts of scripture particularly to himself, and his own affairs; and this manner he endeavours particularly to vindicate, Sermon on Searching the Scriptures, page 246. of his Sermons: ‘It is this application of the historical parts of scripture, when we are reading, that must render them profitable to us;’ and appeals to the experience of the christian, that if he hath so consulted the word of God, he has not been plainly directed how to act, as though he had consulted the Urim and the Thummim. For in this plain and full manner he says, page 38. of his life; ‘The Holy Spirit hath from time to time let him into the knowledge of divine things, and hath directed him in the minutest circumstances.’ And, no doubt, hence it is, that he says, forementioned sermon, page 247, ‘That God, at all times, circumstances, and places, though never so minute, never so particular, will, if we diligently seek the assistance of his Holy Spirit, apply general things to our hearts.’ Which, though it may be true in some measure as to the doctrinal and preceptive parts of scripture, yet it is evidently enthusiastic to say so as to the historical parts of it.” But, however the saying so may appear evidently enthusiastical to you, Gentlemen, after maturely weighing the case, it does not appear in that light to me: for does not the Apostle tell Timothy, 2 Timothy iii. 16, 17. “That all scripture (therein, undoubtedly, including the historical as well as doctrinal and preceptive parts) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness, to make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work.” And does not the same Apostle, speaking of scripture histories, say, 1 Corinthians x. 11. “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” And if it be evidently enthusiastical thus to apply the historical parts of scripture to our own cases in private, is it not equally enthusiastical to preach upon and apply the historical parts of scripture to particular cases or persons in public? And further, if it is evidently enthusiastical to apply the historical parts of scripture to ourselves and to our affairs, then supposing such words as these, “Go in peace, Be whole of thy plague, Son be of good chear;” or that historical passage in John vii. 37. should be applied to a particular soul in deep distress, (as no doubt they have often been) must not that soul reject them entirely for delusions? And if so, how many that are real believers, must be brought into unspeakable bondage?
Page 8, you go on thus: “To mention but one instance more, though we are not of such letter-learned as deny, that there is such an union of believers to Christ, whereby they are one in him, as the Father and he are one, as the Evangelist speaks, or rather the Spirit of God by him; yet so letter-learned we are, as to say, that the passage in Mr. W——d’s sermon of the indwelling of the Spirit, page 311. contains the true spirit of enthusiasm, where he says, ‘To talk of any having the Spirit of God without feeling of it, is really to deny the thing.’ Upon which we say, that the believer may have a satisfaction, that he hath the assistance of the Spirit of God with him in so continual and regular a manner, that he may be said to dwell in him, and yet have no feeling of it.” But, Gentlemen, is not this in effect to deny the indwelling of the Spirit? For how is it possible that the believer can have a satisfaction, that he hath the assistance of the Spirit of God with him in so continued and regular a manner, that he may be said to dwell in him, and yet the believer have no feeling of it? For my part I cannot comprehend it. I could as soon believe the doctrine of transubstantiation, and therefore cannot retract what you are pleased to say contains the true spirit of enthusiasm, “To talk of any having the Spirit of God without feeling it, is really to deny the thing.” The reason you give why the Spirit of God may dwell in a believer, and yet the believer himself have no feeling of it; in my apprehension carries no proof and conviction with it at all. I think you reason thus, page ib. “The metaphor is much too gross to express (however full) this satisfaction of the mind, and has led some to take the expression literally, and hath (we fear) given great satisfaction to many an enthusiast among us since the year 1740, from the swelling of their breasts and stomachs in their religious agitations, which they have thought to be feeling the Spirit, in its operations on them.” Who these enthusiasts, and what these religious agitations are which you are pleased to mention, I cannot tell: neither do I know by whom this metaphor of feeling the Spirit, has been misunderstood, or taken in too gross a sense. But such a way of speaking and writing is very common amongst the most eminent divines, as well as in the articles of the Church of England. In her 17th article she speaks thus: “As the godly consideration of predestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, &c.” Mr. Guthrie, in his Trial of a saving Interest in Christ, page 109. and which used to be Dr. Owen’s Vade mecum, hath this remarkable paragraph: “I speak with the experience of many saints, and I hope according to scripture, if I say there is a communication of the Spirit of God which is let out to some of his people sometimes, that is somewhat beside, if not beyond, that witnessing of a sonship spoken of before. It is a glorious manifestation of God unto the soul, shedding abroad God’s love in the heart. It is a thing better felt than spoken of: it is no audible voice, but it is a flash of glory filling the soul with God, as he is life, light, love, and liberty, countervailing that audible voice, ‘O man greatly beloved,’ Daniel x. 19. putting a man in a transport with this on his heart, ‘It is good to be here,’ as Matthew xvii. 5. It is that which went out from Christ to Mary, when he but mentioned her name, John xx. 16. ‘Jesus saith unto her, Mary: she turneth herself and saith unto him, Rabboni, which is to say, Master.’ He had spoken some words to her before, and she understood not that it was he; but when he uttereth this one word, Mary, there was some admirable divine conveyance and manifestation made out unto her heart, by which she was so satisfyingly filled, that there was no place for arguing and disputing whether or no that was Christ, and if she had any interest in him. That manifestation made faith to itself; and did purchase credit and trust to itself, and was equivalent with, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ This is such a glance of glory, that it may in the highest sense be called the earnest, or first fruits of the inheritance, Ephesians i. 14. for it is a felt arm-full of the holy God.” Worthy Mr. Baxter, in his Gildas [♦]Salvianus, page 40. speaking of the danger of ministers preaching an unknown and unfelt Christ, writes thus: “O Sirs, all your preaching and persuading of others, will be but dreaming and trifling hypocrisy, till the work be thoroughly done upon yourselves. How can you set yourselves day and night to a work, that your carnal hearts are averse from? How can you call out with serious fervour upon poor sinners, with importunate solicitations, to take heed of sin, and to set themselves to a holy life, that never felt yourselves the evil of sin, or the worth of holiness? I tell you, these things are never well known till they are felt, nor well felt till possessed: and he that feeleth them not himself, is not so like to speak feelingly to others, nor to help others to the feeling of them.” Thus wrote Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Baxter: and even the Reverend President himself, in his sermon before the convention, May 28, 1741, page 34. hath these words; “Not but that the saints may feel this very sensibly, and it is a joy unspeakable and full of glory.”
[♦] “Silvianus” replaced with “Salvianus”
But if such a way of writing displeases you now, and you are of the opinion, “That a believer may have a satisfaction, that he hath the assistance of the Spirit of God with him, in so continual and regular a manner, that he may be said to dwell in him, and yet have no feeling of it,” I cannot wonder, Gentlemen, that my writings are offensive; because, as you observe at the end of this paragraph page 8, my compositions are, and I hope always will be, full of these things.
You close your proofs of my being an enthusiast, with these words, “The whole tends to persuade the world (and it has done so with respect to many) that Mr. W. hath as familiar a converse and communion with God, as any of the Prophets and Apostles, and such, as we all acknowledge to have been under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.” What tendency my writings may have to make people think so highly of me, I cannot determine: but this I affirm, that I would not have undertaken to preach the gospel for ten thousand worlds, had I not been fully persuaded that I had a degree of that Spirit, and was admitted to a degree of that holy and familiar converse and communion with God, which the Prophets and Apostles were favoured with, in common with all believers. And if this had not been the case, should I not, Gentlemen, have lied to God as well as unto man, when I declared at my ordination, that “I was inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost,” who, I believe, according to Christ’s promise, will be with every faithful minister (and so as to be felt too) even to the end of the world.
“As a natural consequence of the heat of enthusiasm, by which (you are pleased to say) he was so evidently acted;” in a following paragraph, page 8. you say, “In the next place, we look upon Mr. Whitefield as an uncharitable, censorious, and slanderous man;” habitually such, for that is the idea your words seem to convey. But, Gentlemen, does it follow that Peter could properly be stiled a cursing, swearing man, because with oaths and curses he denied his Lord? Or could David, that man after God’s own heart, be properly stiled a murdering adulterous man, because he committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband Uriah? Or, can a believer be stiled properly an hypocrite, because he has yet got a great deal of hypocrisy remaining in his heart? I suppose, by no means. No more, according to my apprehensions, can any man be justly called an uncharitable, censorious, and slanderous man, if he be not habitually so; supposing it should be proved either from his writings or conduct, that he may have been somewhat rash or uncharitable in his judgment passed upon some particular persons or things.