Wesley Collected Works Vol 9
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-wesley-collected-works-vol-9-122 |
| Words | 390 |
We do believe regeneration, or,
in plain English, the new birth, to be as miraculous or super
natural a work now as it was seventeen hundred years ago. We
likewise believe, that the spiritual life, which commences when
we are born again, must, in the nature of the thing, have a first
moment, as well as the natural. But we say again and again,
we are concerned for the substance of the work, not the circum
stance. Let it be wrought at all, and we will not contend whe
therit be wrought gradually or instantaneously. “But what are
the signs that it is wrought?” We never said or thought, that
they were either “frightful tremors of body,” or “convulsive
agonies of mind; ” (I presume you mean, agonies of mind at
tended with bodily convulsions;) although we know many per
sons who, before this change was wrought, felt much fear and
sorrow of mind, which in some of these had such an effect on the
body as to make all their bones to shake. Neither did we ever
deny, that it is “a work graciously begun by the Holy Spirit,”
enlightening our understanding, (which, I suppose, you call
“our rational powers and faculties,”) as well as influencing our
affections. And it is certain, he “gradually carries on this
work,” by continuing to influence all the powers of the soul;
and that the outward sign of this inward work is, “sincere and
universal obedience.”
13. A Sixth charge is: “They treat Christianity as a wild,
enthusiastic scheme, which will bear no examination.” (Page
30.) Where or when? In what sermon? In what tract,
practical or polemical? I wholly deny the charge. I have
myself closely and carefully examined every part of it, every
verse of the New Testament, in the original, as well as in our
own and other translations. 14. Nearly allied to this is the threadbare charge of enthu
siasm, with which you frequently and largely compliment us. But as this also is asserted only, and not proved, it falls to the
ground of itself. Meantime, your asserting it, is a plain
proof that you know nothing of the men you talk of Be
cause you know them not, you so boldly say, “One advantage
we have over them, and that is reason.” Nay, that is the
very question.