[♦] “experinced” replaced with “experienced”
But what does he mean by Enthusiasm? Perhaps nothing at all: few have any distinct ideas of its meaning. Perhaps, “something very bad,” or, “something I never experienced and do not understand.” Shall I tell you then, what that “terrible something” is? I believe, thinking men mean by Enthusiasm, a sort of religious madness; a false imagination of being inspired by God: and by an Enthusiast, one that fancies himself under the influence of the Holy Ghost, when in fact he is not.
Let him prove me guilty of this, who can. I will tell you once more the whole of my belief on these heads. And if any man will shew me (by arguments, not hard names) what is wrong, I will thank God and him.
28. Every good gift is from God, and is given to man by the Holy Ghost. By nature there is in us no good thing. And there can be none, but so far as it is wrought in us by that good Spirit. Have we any true knowledge of what is good? This is not the result of our natural understanding. The natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God: so that we never can discern them, until God reveals them unto us by his Spirit. Reveals, that is unveils, uncovers; gives us to know what we did not know before. Have we love? It is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. He inspires, breathes, infuses into our soul, what of ourselves we could not have. Does our Spirit rejoice in God our Saviour? It is joy in (or by) the Holy Ghost. Have we true inward peace? It is the peace of God, wrought in us by the same Spirit. Faith, peace, joy, love, are all his fruits. And as we are figuratively said, to see the light of faith, so by a like figure of speech we are said to feel, this peace and joy and love: that is, we have an inward experience of them, which we cannot find any fitter word to express.
*The reasons why in speaking of these things I use those terms, (inspiration particularly) are, 1. Because they are scriptural. 2. Because they are used by our church. 3. Because I know none better. The word “influence of the Holy Ghost,” which I suppose you use, is both a far stronger and a less natural term than inspiration. It is far stronger; even as far as “flowing into the soul” is a stronger expression than “breathing upon it:” and less natural; as breathing bears a near relation to Spirit; to which flowing in has only a distant relation.
“But you thought I had meant immediate inspiration.” So I do, or I mean nothing at all. Not indeed such inspiration as is sine mediis. But all inspiration, tho’ by means, is immediate. Suppose, for instance, you are employed in private prayer, and God pours his love into your heart. God then acts immediately on your soul: and the love of him which you then experience, is as immediately breathed into you by the Holy Ghost, as if you had lived 1700 years ago. Change the term. Say, “God then assists you to love him?” Well, and is not this immediate assistance? Say, “His Spirit concurs with yours.” You gain no ground. It is immediate concurrence or none at all. God, a Spirit acts upon your Spirit. Make it out any otherwise if you can.
*I cannot conceive, how that harmless word immediate, came to be such a bugbear in the world: “Why, I thought you meant such inspiration as the apostles had; and such a receiving the Holy Ghost as that was at the day of Pentecost.” I do, in part: indeed I do not mean, that Christians now receive the Holy Ghost, in order to work miracles: but they do doubtless now receive, yea, are filled with the Holy Ghost, in order to be filled with the fruits of that blessed Spirit. And he inspires into all true believers now, a degree of the same peace and joy and love, which the apostles felt in themselves on that day, when they were first filled with the Holy Ghost.
29. I have now considered the most material objections I know, which have been lately made against the great doctrines I teach. I have produced, so far as in me lay, the strength of those objections, and then answered them, I hope, in the Spirit of meekness. And now I trust it appears, that these doctrines are no other than the doctrines of Jesus Christ: that they are all evidently contained in the word of God, by which alone I desire to stand or fall; and that they are fundamentally the same with the doctrines of the church of England, of which I do, and ever did profess myself a member.
But there remains one objection, which though relating to the head of doctrine, yet is independent on all that went before. And that is, “You cannot agree in your doctrines among yourselves. One holds one thing, and one another. Mr. Whitefield anathematizes Mr. Wesley; and Mr. Wesley anathematizes Mr. Whitefield. And yet each pretends to be led by the Holy Ghost, by the infallible Spirit of God! Every reasonable man must conclude from hence, that neither one nor the other is led by that Spirit.”
I need not say, how continually this has been urged, both in common conversation and from the press: (I am grieved to add, and from the pulpit too: for, if the argument were good, it would overturn the bible.) Nor, how great stress has been continually laid upon it: whoever proposes it, proposes it as demonstration, and generally claps his wings, as being quite assured, it will admit of no answer.