racter; and confequently, is difqualified from diftinguishing betwixt divine revelation and enthusiasm or impofition. Whether Christianity in the grofs, that is, as including in it all that is written in the New Teftament, favours of enthufiafm, is what fome think admits of no doubt; at least, they will have it, that there are many things, in those writings, which countenance the fuppofition. And, indeed, all pretenders of this kind, who have come forth under Chrift's banner, have appealed to those books as their principal, as having from thence whereon to ground their pretenfions, and by which they do, or pretend to baffle all oppofition. And thus, St. Paul is appealed to, I Cor. ii. 9, 10, 11. But as it is written, eye hath not feen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his fpirit: For the fpirit* fearcheth all things, yea,

the

*Here the queftion is, what is that fpirit which fearcheth all things, yea the deep things of God? Not the human fpirit, becaufe that is declared incapable in the following verfe; the things of God knoweth no man (by a capacity or power inherent in himfelf) but by the spirit of God. Nor, furely, is it the divine fpirit, or Holy-Ghoft, becaufe the fpirit of God knoweth all things intuitively,

the deep things of of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, fave the spirit of man which is in him? Even fo the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God (or but by the fpirit of God). As St. Paul here diftinguishes the intelligent principle that takes place in man, and is a part of the human conftitution, and which he calls the fpirit of a man that is in him, from another intelligent principle, which he calls the Spirit of God; fo he confiders all the knowledge the former of thefe can attain to, with regard to the things of God, or Cbriftianity, to be by derivation or communication from the latter. For, tho' a man may attain to the knowledge of, and underE 2 ftand

independent of all fearching. Befides, to say that the fpirit of God fearcheth into the deep things of God, the deep things of itself, is quite idle and vain. That warmth of temper which feems to have taken place in St. Paul, in writing his epiftles, (which epiftles, probably, were fent as they were firft wrote, without being revised by him) feems fometimes to have involved him in confufion, as his writings do plainly fhew. Thus, 1 Cor. xv. 31. I proteft, by your rejoicing, which I have in Chrift Jefus our Lord, I die daily. Good God! What confufion of ideas is here? I proteft, or I vow, or I fwear, by what? Not by my own rejoicing which I have for you in Chrift Jefus ; but by your rejoicing which I myfelf have for you in Chrift Jefus our Lord. This eafily and fmoothly paffes down, as it comes from the apoftle St. Paul; whereas, were it to come from fome modern enthusiast, it would be apt to flick in every throat.

ftand the things of a man, the things of himself, by the Spirit of man that is in him, and is part of himself; yet no man can attain the knowledge of, and understand the things of God, the things of chriftianity, but by the Spirit of God speaking in him, or revealing it unto him. This feems to be the import of the Apoftle's words, and this I apprehend to be the very principle upon which all enthusiasm among us is grounded; namely, that no man can attain to the knowledge of, nor understand the things of God, the things of chriftianity, nor distinguish the things of God, from what is merely the produce of human difcernment and human judgment; I fay, no man can do or attain to this by the bare exercife of his natural powers, nor by any outward teaching and ministry, but only by the immediate inward teaching of the Spirit of God, or by the teaching of the Holy-Ghoft, as St. Paul expreffes it, verse 13. Thus St. Paul averred the fame thing, Chap. xii. 3. of this epiftle. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the fpirit of God, (or by and from a divine dictature) calleth Jefus accurfed. And that no man can fay (or perceive the truth of this propofition) that Jefus is the

Lord,

Lord, but by the Holy-Ghoft. Now, if the truth of this propofition, viz. that Jefus is the Lord, is no otherwife perceivable, but by a divine dictature, or impulfation of the fpirit of God upon the mind of man, as St. Paul feemeth at least to maintain; then, it is plain that all external evidence, all reafoning and argumentation is excluded; and then, christianity is not founded on argument and evidence, as a late author has attempted *to prove; but on divine impulfation, or internal revelation. This, I apprehend, isthe principle our Methodists go upon, for the proof of which they appeal to fuch parts of fcripture as above; and therefore, as their impugners do not pretend to be under this immediate fpecial guidance and teaching of the spirit of God, (tho', in the use of our publick forms of devotion, they seem at leaft to be conftantly praying for it) and confequently, according to St. Paul, are abfolutely incapable of knowing, understanding, or forming any judgment about methodism, which pretends to be grounded on this divine teaching; fo, if they would offer any thing to the purpose against the metho

E 3

* See a book entitled, Christianity not founded on argument.

methodists, then, I think, the cafe requires that they should make good one or other of the following points; namely, either, first, fhew that there is no fuch principle as that above-mentioned, laid down in the New Teftament, notwithstanding the Methodists pretend there is, viz. that the things of God, the things of Christianity, are not difcoverable, are not perceivable, are not dif tinguishable, by the bare exercife of the human faculties, nor by any outward teaching and miniftry, but only by a divine impulfation, or internal revelation to the mind of man: Or, if this cannot be done, then the cafe feems to require that they give up the principle itself, and fhew it to be a palpable error. Ifay, if the impugners of methodism would do any thing to the purpose, then, I think, they muft make good one or other of the forementioned points, which, if they can do neither, then modefty and common decency require them to be filent, and not boldly and wantonly infult* what they cannot by fair argument confute. Tho' this

is

*What difficulties and uncertainty muft needs attend the doctrine of divine impreffions, or internal revelations, has been fully fhewn in the first Section or introduction to thefe reflections.