Answer to Pamphlet Upon the Conduct and Behavior of Methodists, Letter 2 – Errata

Answer to Pamphlet Upon the Conduct and Behavior of Methodists · Letter 2 – Errata

p. 3On board the Willmington, Capt, Darling, bound from Plymouth to Piſcataqua in New-England, Auguſt 25th. 1744.

A LETTER To the RIGHT REVEREND The Biſhop of London, &c.

My Lords,

I Troubled your Lordſhips with a Letter ſome Time ago—I now proceed according to my Promiſe at the cloſe of that, to anſwer the remainder of the Anonymous Pamphlet entitled, Obſervations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect uſually diſtinguiſhed by the Name of Methodiſts.— The Author opens the ſecond Part with this Preface— Beſides the many Irregularities which are juſtly charged upon theſe Itinerant Preachers as Violations of the Laws of Church and State; it may be proper to enquire, whether the Doctrines they teach, or thoſe Lengths they run, beyond what is practiced among our religious Societies, or in any other Chriſtian Church; be a Service or a Diſſervice to Religion? To which purpoſe, the following Queries are ſubmitted to Conſideration — It is here taken for granted that the Methodiſts (termed by our Author either out of Contempt, or by way of Periphraſis) theſe Itinerant Preachers are juſtly charged with many Irregularities, which amount to Violations of the Laws of Church and State. But how has the Author proved, what He here takes for granted? I humbly apprehend not at all — For has it not appeared in my Anſwer to the firſt Part of his Obſervations, that neither the Act of Toleration nor that of Charles IId any way affects the Methodiſts, as being Loyal Subjects to His Majeſty King George, and Members of the Church of England? How then have they been juſtly charged with Violations of the Laws of the State? And has it not been equally made to appear that the Irregularity the Author ſays the Methodiſts have been guilty of, in coming to other pariſh Churches to receive the Sacrament, is owing to the Negligence of your Lordſhip's Clergy p. 4and Church-wardens? How then have they been juſtly charged with Violations of the Laws of the Church? But may we not ſuppoſe by his ſpeaking ſeemingly ſo contemptuouſly of theſe Itinerant Preachers, that Itinerant preaching itſelf, is one of theſe many Irregularities and Violatio…s of the Laws of the Church at leaſt, if not of the State, which according to this Author are juſtly charged upon theſe Itinerant Preachers? His eighth Query, page 11th (which for Method Sake I would here beg leave to make ſome Remarks upon) beſpeaks as much—For He therein ſubmits it to the Conſideration of the publick Whether; in a Chriſtian Nation, where the Inſtruction and Edification of the People is provided for, by placing Miniſters in certain Diſtricts, to whom the Care of the Souls within thoſe Diſtricts is regularly committed; It can be for the Service of Religion, that Itinerant Preachers run up and down from Place to Place and from County to County, drawing after them confuſed Multitudes of People? An Evil which our Church has wiſely provided againſt, ſays our Author, in the Ordination of a Prieſt, by expreſly limiting the Exerciſe of the Powers conferred upon him, of preaching the Word of God, and adminiſtring the Holy Sacraments, to the Congregation where He ſhall be lawfully appointed thereunto — Here indeed is a heinous Irregularity charged upon theſe Itinerant Preachers, even a Violation of the Commiſſion given them when they were ordained Prieſts; — But with what Juſtice, I would refer to your Lordſhips Conſideration — For if, the Commiſſion given us when Ordained Prieſts, abſolutely prohibits us to preach any where beſides in the Congregation where we ſhall be lawfully appointed thereunto, will it not prove too much? And has not the Author in endeavouring to reproach us, unwarily reproached your Lordſhips alſo?—For are not your Lordſhips then equally irregular, equally Violators of the Laws of the Church whenever You preach (tho' it be never ſo ſeldom) out of your Lordſhips reſpective Dioceſſes? And does not this commiſſion thus ſtrictly taken, abſolutely forbid any Preſbyters whatſoever preaching any where beſides in their own particular Congregations? And if ſo, are not all Miniſters that exchange Pulpits equally irregular, at leaſt as rea…ly Violators of their Ordination Commiſſion as theſe Itinerant Preachers?

Our Author in the following Paragraph under the forementioned Query tells us, that the Biſhops indeed and alſo our two Univerſities have power to grant Licences to preach, of a larger extent, to ſuch Clergymen as as they judge proper; who, in virtue thereof may, if they chuſe, travel from place to place as Itinerants — But then the Church has provided in that Caſe (Can. 50) That neither the Miniſter, Church Wardens, nor any other Officers of the Church ſhall ſuffer any Man to preach within the Churches and Chapels, but ſuch as by ſhowing their Licence to preach, ſhall appear unto them to be ſufficiently Authorized thereunto p. 5unto — What theſe Licences for Itinerant preaching are to which the Author here refers is not certain — Does He not ſeem to mean the Common Licences which Your Lordſhips give the Clergy, when they take upon them Holy Orders? Are not theſe the Licences which the Church-wardens examine? And what is the end of theſe Licences? Was it ever heard before that they were to qualify perſons to be Itinerant Preachers? Is not the plain end of them to ſatisfy the Church-wardens that the perſons that offer their Service have had a regular Ordination and are ſufficiently Authoriſed to preach? And does not the Author know that theſe Licences now are little regarded? Do not our Letters of Orders anſwer the ſame end to all intents and purpoſes? Were they not judged ſufficient at our firſt ſetting out into the Miniſtry? And after all, what is it that the Miniſters and Church-wardens can do to perſons that have not theſe Licences? Why they are not to ſuffer them to preach within their Churches and Chapels? But have they any power, my Lords, to hinder them from preaching without their Churches or Chapels? No, bleſſed be God their power is limited within, Hitherto can they go, and no further — And therefore ſuppoſing theſe Itinerant Preachers tho' they have no Licences, do not preach within any Churches or Chapels without the Miniſters or Church-wardens conſent, how are they juſtly charged with Violating a Law of the Church, tho' they ſhould preach without doors to as great Multitudes as ſhall be inclined to hear them?

He proceeds in the 3d paragraph under this 8th Query to write thus the practice of licenſing Itinerant Preachers was occaſioned by the low talents of many Incumbents in the more early days of the Reformation? whoſe Abilities carry'd them no farther than to the reading of Homilies, a defect which has long been remedied by a Liberal Education of ſufficient Numbers of Perſons for the Miniſtry, who regularly perform the Office of Preaching, as well as other Duties, in the Pariſhes committed to their Care. And if the forementioned Defect did ſtill continue, as God be thanked, it does not; it would be ill ſupplied by our Modern Itinerants, who make it their p…incipal employ where ever they go, to inſtill into the People a few favourite tenets of their own; and this, with ſuch Diligence and Zeal as if the whole of Chriſtianity depended upon them, and all Efforts towards the true Chriſtian Life, without a Belief of thoſe Tenets, were vain and ineffectual.

But my Lords, what can this Author mean by writing thus? For ſuppoſing the Practice of Itinerant preaching was primarily occaſioned by the low Talents of many Incumbents in the more early Days of the Reformation, does it therefore follow, that there can be no other juſt Cauſe aſſigned for Itinerant preaching now? What if the Generality of the preſent many Incumbents depart from the good old Doctrines that were preached in the p. 6more early Days of the Reformation, and notwithſtanding their liberal Education, make no other Uſe of their Learning but to explain away the Articles and Homilies to which they have ſubſcribed in the grammatical and literal Senſe? Is it not neceſſary in order to keep up the Doctrines, and thereby the real Dignity of the Church, that either the Clergy thus degenerated, ſhould be obliged to read the Homilies as formerly, and to preach conſiſtently therewith, or that thoſe who do hold the Doctrines of the Reformation, ſhould go about from Place to Place, and from County to County, nay from Pole to Pole, if their Sphere of Action extended ſo far, to direct poor Souls that are every-where ready to periſh for lack of Knowledge, into the right Way which leadeth unto Life? That this is the Caſe between the eſtabliſhed Clergy and theſe Itinerant Preachers will appear preſently; and how then can this Author charge them with making it their principal Employ, wherever they go, to inſtill into the People a few favourite Tenets of their own? Has the Author follo…ed them wherever they have preached, that he aſſerts this ſo confidently concerning them? Is it not to be wiſhed that he had at leaſt taken Care to have been better informed? For then he would have ſaved himſelf from the Guilt of a notorious Slander. For is it not evident to all that hear them, that the favourite Tenets the Itinerant Preachers make it their principal Employ to inſtill into People's Minds wherever they go, are the Great Doctrines of the Reformation, Homilies and Articles of the Church? Such as Man's bringing into the World with him a Corruption which renders him liable to God's Wrath and eternal Damnation— That the Condition of Man after the Fall of Adam, is ſuch that he cannot turn and prepare himſelf, by his own natural Strength and good Works to Faith and calling upon God — That we are accounted righteous before God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt by Faith, and not for our own Works or Deſervings — That they are to be accurſed, that preſume to ſay, that every Man ſhall be ſaved by the Law or Sect which he profeſſeth, ſo that he be diligent to frame his Life according to that Law, and the Light of Nature— Theſe, my Lords, are ſome of the favourite Tenets of theſe Itinerant Preachers— Their others are like unto them — Can theſe, my Lords, be properly called their Own? Or ought it not to be the principal Employ of every true Miniſter wherever he goes, to inſtill ſuch T…nets, and that too with the utmoſt Diligence and Zeal into the People's Minds? Does not a great Part of Chriſtianity depend on them? And are not all Pretenſions to a true Chriſtian Life, without a Belief of theſe Tenets, vain and ineffectual? May not theſe Itinerant Preachers therefore complain unto your Lordſhips of this anonymous Author as Mephiboſheth complained to David of treacherous Z…ba? Doubtleſs he hath … them — And wherefore does he ſpeak ſo contemptuouſly … Is it not an amiable and honourable Character? p. 7And may I not take the Freedom of acquainting your Lordſhips, that if all the Right Reverend the Biſhops did their Duty, (eſpecially my Lord of London, whoſe Dioceſs is of ſuch a vaſt Extent) they would all of them long ſince have commenced Itinerant Preachers too?

But to return to an Examination of the other Part of the Author's Preface —After he has taken it for granted, that many Irregularities are juſtly charged upon theſe Itinerant Preachers as Violations of the Laws of Church and State, He adds, it may be proper to enquire, whether the Doctrines they teach, and thoſe Lengths they run beyond what is practiſed among our Religious Societies, or in any other Chriſtian Church, be a Service or Diſſervice to Religion. The Religious Societies or any other Chriſtian Church? What? Does our Author make the Religious Societies a Church? This is going further than the Methodiſts, whom he is pleaſed to ſtile only a Sect? But if the Religious Societies, my Lords, be a Church, may it not be proper to enquire how their Doctrines or Practices came to be ſet up as a Rule and Standard for others to go by, ſo that Perſons doing Service or Diſſervice to Religion muſt be judged of according as they deviate from or adhere to the Religious Societies either in Doctrine or Practice? Or ſuppoſing the Religious Societies were to be a Standard for others to go by, was it not incumbent on the Author to give the publick a ſhort Summary & Account of their Doctrines and Practices? For otherwiſe how can the World poſſibly judge whether the Methodiſts do deviate from them, or if ſo, whether they do thereby Service or Diſſervice to Religion? Indeed this Author has told us in his firſt Part how the Religious Societies behave on Sundays, but he has no where acquainted us with the Principles they hold, or how they behave on other Days. — And till he does I will venture to affirm, that unleſs theſe Itinerants teach other Doctrines than the preſent Religious Societies generally hold, and run greater Lengths in Chriſtianity than the Generality of them it is to be feared now run, they will be in great Danger of never arriving at the Mark for the Prize of their High-Calling in Chriſt Jeſus their Lord.—

I have been the more particular, my Lord, in the Examination of the Preface, becauſe the Author by annexing theſe Words, To which Purpoſe the following Queries are ſubmitted to Conſideration, ſeems to lay it down as the Ground-work and Foundation of all the ſubſequent Queries.— And if the Foundation be ſo weak and ſandy, how ſlight and ſuperficial muſt the Superſtructure be?

I ſuppoſe your Lordſhips will readily grant that it is the bounden Duty of every regular and fair Writer (eſpecially when he is charging others with Irregularities as Violations of the Laws of Church and State) to take Care that he does not violate the Laws of Chriſtian Charity — Or if he puts Queries to the Publick concerning any Perſons, ought he not to take p. 8heed that thoſe Queries are founded upon Truth, and that the Charges therein exhibited againſt them are really matter of fact? But our Author has notoriouſly neglected this fundamental Rule, and thereby not only caſt a laſting Blot and Odium upon his own Character, if his Name was known, but alſo done real Hurt to the Cauſe he would defend— The Query already examined concerning Itinerant preaching, wherein he has charged the Methodiſts with inſtilling into People a few favourite Tenets of their own, ſufficiently Demonſtrates this — But this is not all, ſeveral of the other Queries now coming under Conſideration are by no means founded upon Truth, and contain Charges againſt theſe Itinerants, whereby they are as much wronged and unjuſtly vilified as ever Stephen was when the Jews ſuborned Men which ſaid, We have heard him ſpeak blaſphemous Words againſt Moſes and againſt God, this holy Place and the Law.

To prove this we need only examine the two Queries which immediately follow the Preface—

Query 1ſt. Whether Notions in Religion may not be heightened to ſuch Extremes as to lead ſome into a Diſregard of Religion itſelf through Deſpair of attaining ſuch exalted Heights? And whether others, Who have imbibed thoſe Notions, may not be led by them into a Diſregard and Diſeſteem of the common Duties and Offices of Life, to ſuch a Degree at leaſt as is inconſiſtent with that Attention to them and that Diligence in them, which Providence has made neceſſary to the Well-being of private Families, and publick Societies, and which Chriſtianity does not only require in all Stations and in all Conditions, but declares at the ſame time (Col. 3.22. Epheſ. 5.6.) that the performance even of the low…t Offices in Life, as unto God (Whoſe Providence has placed People in the…r ſeveral Stations) is truly Serving Chriſt and will not fail of its Reward in the next World.

Query 2. Whether the Enemy of Mankind may not find his Account in their carrying Chriſtianity, which was deſigned for a Rule to all Stations and all Conditions; to ſuch Heights as make it fairly practicable by a very few in Compariſon, or rather by none?

His 5th and 6th Queries, Page the 10th, are like unto them— The… run thus, Whether thoſe exalted Strains in Religion, and an Imagination of being already in a State of Perfection, are not apt to lead Men to Spiritual Pride and to a Contempt of their Fellow-Chriſtians; while they conſider them as only going-on in what they account the low and imperfect Way, (i. e. as growing in Grace and Goodneſs only by Degrees,) And again, Whether the ſame exalted Strains and Notions do not tend to weaken the natural and civil Relations among Men, by leading the Inferiors, into whoſe Heads thoſe Notions are infuſed, to a Diſeſteem of their Superiors; while they conſider them as in a much lower Diſpenſation than p. 9themſelves; though thoſe Superiours are otherwiſe ſober and good Men, and regular Attendants on the Ordinances of Religion?

Here again it is ſuppoſed that theſe Itinerant Preachers either imagine themſelves to be in a State of Perfection, or at leaſt teach others to imagine that they are—And that the Conſequences of this is a weakning the natural and civil Relations among Men by leading them to a Diſeſteem of their Fellow-Chriſtians, and Superiors who are ſuppoſed to be in a lower Diſpenſation than themſelves?

Heavy Charges my Lords, theſe are indeed!—But what Evidence does our Author produce to prove them? Why really none at all—For here is no Quotation at the Bottom of either of theſe Queries from any of their Writings, ſo that we cannot tell whether they are levelled againſt theſe Itinerate Preachers in general or any one of them in parcular— And therefore the Prebend of St. Paul's who has been pleaſed to reply to my firſt Letter in Vindication of this Author, has done wrong in affirming, as far as I can recollect, that under each Query there is ſome Quotation either from my Journals or other Writings, whereon it is founded — But there is no ſuch Thing under theſe Four wherein ſuch heavy Charges are included — And therefore may I not argue, as the Author does upon another Occaſion in his firſt Part, Page 8th, 'till ſome Proof does appear the Preſumption muſt be that he has none?

In the mean while I dare challenge this Author, and the whole World to produce any Paſſage out of my Writings wherein I have taught any other Chriſtianity than what through the Aids of the Bleſſed Spirit is practicable by all Perſons in all Conditions; or that I ever preached otherwiſe than that the Performance even of the loweſt Offices of Life as unto God whoſe Providence has placed People in their ſeveral Stations, is truly a ſerving of Chriſt and will not fail of its Reward (though not of Debt yet of Grace) in the next World. Neither did I ever imagine that I had attain'd, or was already perfect, or taught Perſons to imagine that they were ſo: No, I expect to carry a Body of Sin and Death about with me as long as I live, and confeſs from my inmoſt Soul, that I am the chief of Sinners, and leſs than the leaſt of all Saints: I am ſo far from thinking an Imagination that we are already in a State of Perfection, is only apt to lead Men into ſpiritual Pride, that I condemn it as the very Quinteſcence and higheſt Degree of it.— And the more we are conformed to the Divine Image, the more I ſtrict believe we ſhall be in keeping up our natural and civil Relations among Men, in giving all Honour to whom Honour is due, and in Lowlineſs of Mind eſteeming each other better than ourſelves. And if ſo, my Lords, may not the Author for thus charging theſe Itinerants in general without Diſtinction be juſtly ſtiled a L…beller? And how will he undertake to prove that any one of theſe Itinerant Preachers in particular carries Chriſtianity to p. 10any greater Heighth than he himſelf does Query 13th, Page 16, where in ſpeaking of the Holy Spirit, he has theſe Words, whoſe peculiar Office it is, to ſeaſon the Heart with Humility, and to root out of it the Seeds (what is that but the very Inbeing?) of Pride and vain Glory.

Is he not very irregular in writing thus at Random; nay, does he not hereby himſelf openly violate the Laws both of Church and State?

It's true, our Author would appear an Advocate for both, but does not his third Query, page 9th plainly prove him a real Friend to neither; eſpecially the latter? He there (asks, whether in particular, the carrying the Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith alone to ſuch a heighth, as not to allow, that a careful ſincere Obſervance of moral Duties is ſo much as a Condition of our Acceptance with God, and of our being juſtified in his Sight; Whether this I ſay, does not naturally lead People to a diſregard of thoſe Duties, and a low eſteem of them; or rather to think them no Part of the Chriſtian Religion; It is plain from hence, that one of theſe Extremes to which theſe Itinerants exalt Chriſtianity, and whereby its queried, whether they do Service or Diſſervice to Religion is their carrying the Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith alone to ſuch a Height, as not to allow that a careful and ſincere obſervance of moral Duties is ſo much as a Condition of our Acceptance with God, and of our being juſtified in his Sight. Our Author it ſeems is for another Way of Salvation, viz. Query 5th, page 10th, viz, for Men's gradually working out their own Salvation, by their own honeſt Endeavours, and thro' the ordinary Aſſiſtances of God's Grace; with a humble Reliance upon the Merits of Chriſt for the Pardon of their Sins and the Acceptance of their Sincere, tho' imperfect Services This is our common Divinity — This is what my Lord of London in his laſt paſtoral Letter againſt Luke warmneſs and Enthuſiaſm, exhorted his Clergy to preach — But how contrary is all this to the Articles, and homilies of our Church? For what ſays the 11th Article? We are accounted righteous before God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt by Faith, and not for our own Works or Deſervings — Wherefore that we are juſtified by Faith only is a moſt wholſome Doctrine and very full of Comfort, as more largely is expreſſed in the Homily of Juſtification

And if both the Article & Homily of the Church of England expreſly declare that we are juſtified before (or in the Sight of) God, by faith, and faith only, how can a careful and ſincere Obſervance of moral duties be a Condition, my Lords, of our Acceptance with God, and of our being juſtified in his Sight? And if the Doctrine of being juſtified by Faith only be a wholſome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, how can this Author in the latter Part of this Query now before us, enquire, whether preaching this Doctrine, does not naturally lead People to a Diſregard of thoſe, viz. moral p. 11Duties, and a low Eſteem of them; or rather to think them no Part of the Chriſtian Religion? Does he conſider that in writing thus, he directly ſymbolizes with the Infidel, Rom. 6.1. who is introduced after the Apoſtle had been inſiſting at large on this Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith only as ſpeaking like our Author, "ſhall we ſin then that grace may abound—"? The Apoſtle immediately rejects the Motion with a me genoito and ſo reply theſe Itinerants, my Lords, God forbid — For what ſays the 12th, Article of our Church,; Albeit that Good Works, which are the Fruits of Faith, and follow after Juſtification, cannot put away Sins, and endure the Severity of God's Judgment; yet are they pleaſing and acceptable to God in Chriſt, and do ſpring out neceſſarily of a true and lively Faith, in ſomuch that by them a lively Faith, may be as evidently known, as a Tree diſcerned by the Fruit? And do we then by preaching the Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith only, naturally lead People to a diſregard of moral Duties and a low Eſteem of them, much leſs to think them …o part of the Chriſtian Religion? Do we not rather eſtabliſh them, by laying a Foundation whereon, true moral Duties can only be built ſo as to be acceptable in the Sight of God? For what ſays our 13th Article? Works done before the Grace of Chriſt, and the Inſpiration of his Spirit, are not pleaſant to God, for as much as they ſpring not of Faith, in Jeſus Chriſt, neither do they make Men meet to receive Grace, or (as the School Authors ſay) deſerve Grace of Congruity; yea rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the Nature of Sin.

To this Query our Author annexes the following Obſervation — The Words of the pious and judicious Mr. Chillingworth are very material to this Purpoſe For my part, ſays he, I do heartily wiſh that by publick Authority it were ſo ordered, that no Man, ſhould ever preach or print this Doctrine, that Faith alone, juſtifies, unleſs he joins this together with it, That univerſal Obedience is neceſſary to Salvation — What Piety and Judgement Mr. Chillingworth might be remarkable for I …ow not — But if by univerſal Obedience being neceſſary to Salvation, He means what our Auther does (or otherwiſe this Quotation is nothing to the Purpoſe) Juſtification in the Sight of God, then Mr. Chillingworth's writing after this Manner is a Specimen neither of his Piety or Judgment — Becauſe the quite contrary Doctrine is contained in our Articles and eſtabliſhed by publick Authority — So that to wiſh for Juſtification by Faith alone to be put down by publick Authority, what is it in Effect but to wiſh for the utter Subverſion of the grand Doctrine of the Reformation? Perhaps it may not be impertinent or a vain Repetition, if I here beg leave to tranſcribe a Paſſage (which I lately printed in my Anſwer to the Prebend of St. Paul's) out of the Honeycomb of Free Juſtification, written p. 12by one Mr. Eaton, A. M. of Trinity College in Cambridge, printed at London in the year 1642. "Free Juſtification, ſays he, was firſt enjoined to be diligently taught for the Reformation of the Church, by King Henry 8th, but was by King Edward 6th. and Queen Elizabeth principally eſtabliſhed by Parliament, and ſingled out from all the reſt of the Eſtabliſhed Articles of Religion; and reduced into Sermons and Homilies to be (after the Peoples Sight of their loſt Eſtate, and woful Miſery by Sin) principally taught, and chiefly known and underſtood of all the Subjects and Commons of the Land for theſe four Cauſes—

1ſt Becauſe it is the only immediate Cauſe and Means of our Peace with God — For being juſtified by Faith we have Peace with God, Rom. 5.1. and our Aſſurance of free Salvation by Jeſus Chriſt, and is therefore called the Juſtification of Life, Rom. 5.18. For whom God juſtifieth, them be alſo glorifieth, Rom. 8.30.

2. Becauſe it is the chiefeſt Cauſe and Means to diſcover and ſuppreſs the Romiſh Antichriſt, Popery &c. and all other Superſtitions, Sects, Errors, and Schiſms out of the Land; and to eſtabliſh Unity, Peace, and Concord in Matters of Religion, and of Aſſurance of free Salvation, and makes every Man to keep in a lawful Vocation, and to do it profitably in Love, Gal. 5.13.

4. To direct Miniſters orthopodein to go with a right Foot to the Truth of the Goſpel, Gal. 2.14. In ſound Preaching, and pure declaring of the Word of God, by a true Faith of free Juſtification, becauſe (ſaith the eſtabliſhed Doctrine of our Church) ſincere Preachers ever were, and ever ſhall be but a few; and their preaching of God's Word moſt ſincere in the Beginning, by Proceſs of Time waxeth leſs and leſs pure, and after is corrupt, and laſt of all quite laid down, and left off; becauſe free Juſtification is a Doctrine hardly learned in a Church, and ſoon loſt again, Gal. 1.6. And yet is the true Strength, Happineſs, and Safety of the whole Land, Iſa. 62.1—6.

Hereupon the fifth Part of the Sermon againſt Diſobedience and Rebellion, eſtabliſhed by Queen Elizabeth, teacheth the Commons, that ſuch Biſhops or Eccleſiaſtical Perſons, as by Pride and ambitious Rule, do by Terms of Error, Schiſm, or Hereſy, hinder this main Light of God's Word from the People, are the chiefeſt Traytors in the Land: And the ſixth and laſt Part largely teacheth, that ſuch Subjects and Commons to whom through Ignorance of God's Word, this Light of Righteouſneſs, and this Sun of Underſtanding doth not ſhine, altho' they may brag, as did ſometimes the Jewiſh Clergy and People, that they cannot lack Knowledge, yet are ſuch by their blind, dead Faith, Traytors to God, Traytors to their King, Traytors to their own Souls and Bodies, and Traytors to the whole Land and Country.

p. 13Thus far Mr. Eaton— And whether He or Mr. Chillingworth wrote with moſt Piety and Judgment on this Head, I leave to the Author's Conſideration—And at the ſame Time appeal to your Lordſhips, whether the Methodiſts by preaching up the Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith alone carry Chriſtianity to an Extreme? Or, whether or not this Author by making moral Duties a Condition of our Acceptance with God, and of our being juſtified in his Sight is not himſelf guilty of an Irregularity which amounts to a Violation of the Laws both of Church and State?

May not this alſo, my Lords, ſerve as an Anſwer to our Author's 10th Query, Page 12th. viz. Whether it be for the Service of Religion, to diſcourage People from reading Archbiſhop Tillotſon's Sermons and the whole Duty of Man; to whom our Methodiſts might have added many more of our beſt Writers after the Reſtoration. For, all theſe (together with explaining the whole Work of our Redemption by Chriſt) endeavour'd to turn the Minds of People to the Practice of Moral Duties, and to cure them of that Madneſs and Enthuſiaſm into which they had been led by the Antinomian Doctrines and others of the like Tendency, during the Times of Anarchy and Confuſion? Undoubtedly yes—For are they not both wrong in their Foundation? The latter indeed lays no Foundation by juſtifying Faith at all, (and therefore may be more properly term'd half the Duty of Man) and the former, like our Author, contrary to the Laws of Church and State, makes good Works a Condition of our Acceptance with God, and of our being juſtified in his Sight—And though I might have ſpared my borrowed Compariſon of putting the Arch-Biſhop on a Level with Mahomet, (for which I ask the publick Pardon, though perhaps even this Confeſſion may be turn'd to my Reproach) yet I can by no Means agree with our Author in this ſame Query, Page 13th, that either his Grace, or the Author of the whole Duty of Man, explained the whole Work of our Redemption by Chriſt—For how can that be poſſibly done without explaining the Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith alone? And therefore whatever good the Arch-Biſhop, and many other of our beſt Writers after the Reſtoration (as this Author ſtiles them) might deſign by endeavouring to turn the Minds of People to the Practice of moral Duties, and to cure them of that Madneſs and Enthuſiaſm into which, they had been led by the Antinomian Doctrines and others of the like Tendency, during the Times of Anarchy and Confuſion, may I not appeal to your Lordſhips, whether that of the Poet be not too applicable to his Grace the Author of the Whole Duty of Man, and Writers of that Stamp, viz.

Indicit in Syllam, cupiens vitare Charibdin?

p. 14For is there no Way, my Lords, of turning People's Minds to the Practice of moral Duties without turning their Minds from the Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith alone, without which moral Duties cannot be acceptable to God at all? What is this, my Lords, but Pharoah like, to command God's Iſrael to make Brick without giving them Straw? And ſuppoſing it be true, that the People before the Reſtoration had been led into Madneſs and Enthuſiaſm, by Antinomian Doctrines, was there no other Way, my Lords, of curing them of this Madneſs, but by preaching down the moſt fundamental Article of the Church of England, and ſo by preaching up the Doctrine of Juſtification in the Sight of God partly by Works and partly by Faith, bring them half Way to the Church of Rome? Do not theſe Itinerants, my Lords, by laying down Faith as the Foundation, and building the Superſtructure of univerſal Obedience as the Fruit of it thereon, keep a proper Medium, and take the moſt effectual Method of preſerving People from Antinomianiſm on the one Hand, or Madneſs and Enthuſiaſm, Anarchy and Confuſion on the other? And is not this, my Lords, the conſtant Tenour of their Sermons? Do they not firſt labour to bring People to a real Faith in Chriſt as the Lord their Righteouſneſs, and then exhort thoſe that believe, to be careful to maintain and ſhew forth their Faith, by a conſtant uniform Performance of all manner of good Works?

How diſingenuous then is this Author's 9th Query, Page 12th. Whether it does not ſavour of Self-ſufficiency and Preſumption, when a few young Heads, without any Colour of a Divine Commiſſion, ſet up their own Schemes, as the great Standard of Chriſtianity: And, How can it be reconciled to Chriſtian Humility, Prudence, or Charity, to indulge their own Notions to ſuch a Degree, as to perplex, unhinge, terrify, and diſtract the Minds of Multitudes of People, who have lived from their Infancy under a Goſpel Miniſtry, and in the regular Exerciſe of a Goſpel Worſhip; and all this, by perſuading them, that they have never yet heard the true Goſpel, nor been inſtructed in the true Way of Salvation before; and tha… they neither are, nor can be true Chriſtians, but by adhering to their Doctrins and Diſciplin, and embracing Chriſtianity upon their Schemes. All the while, for the Sake of thoſe Schemes, and in Purſuance of them, violating the wholſome Rules, which the Powers Spiritual and Temporal have wiſely and piouſly eſtabliſhed, for the Preſervation of Peace and Order in the Church.

Here he charges theſe Itinerants (tho' without Proof, as he had done in the proceeding one) with ſetting up their own Schemes, as the great Standard of Chriſtianity, and with telling People that they neither are or can be true Chriſtians, but by adhering to their Doctrines and Diſcipline, and embracing Chriſtianity upon their Schemes. Is not this Calumny all over? For where has this Author made it appear p. 15that the Methodiſts preach contrary to the Articles of the eſtabliſhed Church? Or how does he or can he prove, that they affirm that People neither are or can be true Chriſtians without adhering to their Diſcipline? Where are any Quotations to this Purpoſe in his Obſervations? Is not this, my Lords, all gratis dictum? And therefore to uſe ſome of his own Words, Does it not ſavour of Self-ſufficiency and Preſumption, and can it be reconciled to Chriſtian Humility, Prudence, or Charity to indulge his Prejudice againſt any Perſon's living to ſuch a Degree, as to lay Things to their Charge which they never thought of or ſaid? For do not theſe Itinerants freely converſe with Perſons of all Communions? Have I not in particular communicated wi…h the Church of Scotland, and preached among the Churches in New-England? Do not the Generality of the Clergy cry out againſt me as a Latitudinarian, and look upon me for ſo doing as the bigotted Jews did on Peter for going into the uncircumciſed Gentiles, tho' I ſay as he did, can any Man forbid me to converſe with and communicate with thoſe who have received the Holy Ghoſt as well as we? Are not theſe notorious Matters of fact? And how then can this Author inſinuate, that theſe Itinerants tell People that they neither are or can be Chriſtians without adhering to their Diſcipline?

But further, How ſcornfully does he ſpeak of theſe Itinerants? He ſtiles them a few young Heads — And how unwarily has he thereby ſhewed his Ignorance of the lively Oracles of God? For has he never read what David ſaith, Pſal. 8.2. Out of the Mouths of Babes an Sucklings has thou ordained Strength, becauſe of thine Enemies, that thou mighteſt ſtill the Enemy and Avenger? Or that of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 1. 27, 28. But God hath choſen the fooliſh Things of this World to confound the wiſe; and God hath choſen the weak Things of this World to confound the Things which are mighty; and baſe Things of the World, and Things which are deſpiſed, hath God choſen, yea and Things that are not, to bring to nought Things which are? How preſumptuouſly does he alſo tax theſe few young Heads in this ſame Query with acting without any Colour of a Divine Commiſſion? For have not ſeveral of theſe young Heads received a Commiſſion from Your Lordſhips? And does not the Succeſs they have met with, as alſo their being ſtrengthened to ſtem and ſurmount ſuch a Torrent of Oppoſition afford ſome Colour at leaſt, that they have acted by a Divine Commiſſion indeed? For how could a few young Heads, my Lords, or any Men whatſoever do ſuch Things unleſs God was with them?

But our Author it ſeems looks upon what they call Succeſs in a different Light, and therefore in this 9th Query further asks, How it can be reconciled to Chriſtian Humility, Prudence, or Charity, to indulge their own Notions to ſuch a Degree, as to perplex, unhinge, terrify and diſtract the Minds of Multitudes of People, who have lived from p. 16their Infancy under a Goſpel Miniſtry, and in the regular Exerciſe of a Goſpel Worſhip; and all this, by perſuading them, that they have never yet heard the true Goſpel, nor been inſtructed in the true Way of Salvation before. To prove this particular Part of the Query, He refers to Paſſages which my Lord of London was pleaſed to extract out of my third Journal ſome Years ago ſuch as, I offer'd Jeſus Chriſt freely to them — I think Wales is excellently well prepared for the Goſpel of Chriſt — Received News of the wonderful Progreſs of the Goſpel in Yorkſhire under the Miniſtry of my dear Brother Ingham— Iwas refreſh'd by a great Packet of Letters, giving me an Account of the ſucceſs of the Goſpel— Amoſt comfortable Packet of Letters, giving me an Account of the Succeſs of the Goſpel— But how does all theſe Paſſages, my Lords, put altogether afford the leaſt Shadow of a Proof of what this Author here lays to theſe Itinerants Charge? Or how can offering Chriſt freely and hearing and writing of the Succeſs of the Goſpel, be interpreted as perplexing, unhinging, and terrifying and diſtracting the Minds of Multitudes of People &c? Is not this, my Lords, like the other Proofs he brings againſt theſe Itinerants in ſome other Reſpects? And may I not venture to affirm now whatever I did ſome Years ago, that if the Right Reverend the Biſhops and Reverend the Clergy hold the ſame Principles with this anonymous Author, then the Generality of the poor People of England, however regular they may have been from their Infancy in the Exerciſe of a Goſpel Worſhip, never yet lived under a Goſpel Miniſtry, have never yet heard the true Goſpel, or been inſtructed in the true Way of Salvation— For how can that be, when the fundamental Doctrine of the Goſpel, I mean Juſtification by Faith alone in the Sight of God, muſt then be neceſſarily every where preached down? Does not Luther call this Articulus ſtantis aut cadentis Eccleſiae? And is there any Thing, my Lords, ſo very irreconcilable to Chriſtian Humility, Prudence or Charity, for a few young Heads, who do hold this Doctrine, ſeeing thoſe who ſeem Pillars and are the aged Heads of the Church are ſo much out of Order, to venture out and preach this Doctrine to as great Multitudes of People as will give them the Hearing? And ſuppoſing ſome of theſe Multitudes ſhould be unhinged, terrified, diſtracted or diſturbed a little, is it not better they ſhould be thus unhinged from off their falſe Foundation here, than by building upon their own Works, and going about to eſtabliſh a Righteouſneſs of their own, endanger their eternal Salvation hereafter?

The diſtracting People's Minds to ſuch a Degree as to occaſion ſudden Roarirgs, Agonies, Screamings, Tremblings, Dropping-down, Ravings and ſuch like, is by no Means the great End propoſed by theſe Itinerants pr…ching, much … was it ever urged bv them as an eſſential Mark of … Spirit of God — And therefore, my Lords, is p. 17not our Author very unfair in ſtating his 4th Query, Page 10th, as he has done, viz. Whether a due and regular Attendance on the publick Offices of Religion, paid by good Men in a ſerious and compoſed Way, does not better anſwer the true Ends of Devotion, and is not a better Evidence of the Co-operation of the Holy Spirit, than thoſe ſudden Agonies, Roarings and Screamings, Tremblings, Droppings-down, Ravings and Madneſſes: into which their Hearers have been caſt; according to the Relations given of them in the Journals referr'd to? Would one not imagine by this Query that theſe Itinerants laid down ſuch Things as Screamings, Tremblings, &c. as eſſential Marks of the Co-Operations of the Holy Spirit? But can any ſuch Thing be proved? Are they not looked upon by theſe Itinerants themſelves as extraordinary Things, proceeding generally from Soul-diſtreſs, and ſometimes it may be from the Agency of the evil-Spirit, who labours to drive poor Souls into Deſpair? Does not this appear from the Relation given of them in one of the Journals referred to? Are there not many Relations of the Co-Operation of the Spirit in the ſame Journal where no ſuch bodily Effects are ſo much as hinted at? And does not this give ground to ſuſpect that The due and regular Attendance on the publick Offices of Religion, paid by (what our Author calls) good Men in a ſerious and compoſed Way, is little better than a dead formal Attendance on outward Ordinances, which a Man may continue in all his Life-Time, and be all the while far from the Kingdom of God? Did ever any one before hear this urged as an Evidence of the Co-operation of the Spirit? Or would any one think that the Author of the Obſervations ever read the Relations that are given of the Converſion of ſeveral in the Holy Scriptures? For may we not ſuppoſe, my Lords, that many were caſt into ſudden Agonies, and Screamings, Acts 2.37. when they were pricked to the Heart, and ſaid unto Peter and the reſt of the Apoſtles, Me… and Brethren, what ſhall we do to be ſaved? Or what would this Author think of the Converſion of the Jaylor, Acts 10.29, 30, who SPRANG IN, and came TREMBLING and FELL DOWN before Paul and Silas; and brought them out, and ſaid, Sirs, what muſt I do to be ſaved? Or what would he think of Paul who trembling, aſtoniſh'd, Acts. 9.6, ſaid, Lord, what will thou have me to do,? and was afterwards, verſe 9th, three Days without Sight, and neither did eat nor drink? Is it not to be feared, that if this Author had ſet upon the Bench, and heard this Apoſtle give an Account of his own Converſion, he would have joined with Feſtus in crying out with a loud Voice, Paul much Learning hath made thee mad? And are not all theſe Things and whatever elſe is recorded in the Book of God written for our Learning? Is not God the ſame Yeſterday, to Day, for ever? And may he not now as well as formerly reveal his Arm and diſplay his Power in bringing Sinners home to himſelf as ſuddenly and inſtantaneouſly as in the firfſ planting of the Goſpel Church?

p. 18But it ſeems by Query 7th; page 10th, that our Author doubts whether there be any ſuch Thing as a ſudden and inſtantaneous Change. For he there enquires Whether a gradual Improvement in Grace and Goodneſs, is not a better Foundation of Comfort, and of an Aſſurance of a Goſpel New Birth, than that which is founded on the Doctrin of a ſudden and inſtantaneus Change; Which, if there be any ſuch Thing, is not eaſily diſtinguiſhed from Fancy and Imagination; the Workings whereof we may well ſuppoſe to be more ſtrong ond powerful, while the Perſon conſiders himſelf in the State of one who is admitted as a Candidate for ſuch a Change, and is taught in due Time to expect it? Here it is to be obſerve;d, that after telling of a ſudden and inſtantaneous Change, he adds, if there be any ſuch Thing — What, my Lords,? Does this Author profeſs himſelf an Advocate for the Church of England, and yet ſay "If there be any ſuch Thing as a ſudden inſtantaneous Change?" Does he not hereby lay an Ax to the very Root of the Baptiſmal Office? For if the Child be actually regenerated by the Holy Ghoſt, when the Miniſter ſprinkles Water upon it in the Name of the bleſſed Trinity, does it not follow, that …f any Change at all be wrought in the Child at that Time, it muſt be ſudden and Inſtantaneous? And does he then ſay, “If there be any ſuch Thing”? — And do your Lordſhips aſſent thereto? With what Reaſon then are theſe Itinerants upbraided for talking of a ſudden inſtantaneous Change, upon which the very Eſſence of Baptiſmal Regeneration, that Diana of the preſent Clergy, entirely depends?

Beſides, with what Confidence or Rules of fair Reaſoning can he here enquire Whether a gradual Improvement in Grace and Goodneſs, is not a better Foundation of Comfort, and of an Aſſurance of a Goſpel New-Birth, than that which is founded on the Doctrine of a ſudden and inſtantaneous Change; which, if there be any ſuch Thing, is not eaſily diſtinguiſhed from Fancy and Imagination; the working whereof we may well ſuppoſe to be more STRONG and powerful, while the Perſon conſiders himſelf in the State of one who is admitted as a Candidate for ſuch a Change, and is taught in due Time to expect it?

However unintelligible the latter Part of this Query may be, does not the former Part of it ſeem to imply that theſe Itinerants found the Aſſurance of the Goſpel New-Birth on this ſudden & inſtantaneous Change wrought on their Hearers under their Sermons excluſive of a gradual Improvement in Grace and Goodneſs afterwards? But is not this mere Slander? For however they may humbly hope that Sinners when deeply impreſt may be ſuddenly & effectually wrought upon, yet how can it be proved that they reckon them real Converts, till they ſee them bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, in doing juſtly, loving Mercy and walking humbly with their God? Or if this was not the Caſe, does not the Author himſelf if he holds Baptiſmal Regeneration, found his Comfort on the Dotrine of a ſudden and inſtantaneous Change? And p. 19do not the greateſt part of the poor Souls now in England go on ſecure that they ſhall be eternally happy and yet have no better Foundation of Comfort, and Aſſurance of a Goſpel New-Birth than that which is founded on the Doctrine of a ſudden and inſtantaneous Change wrought upon them in Baptiſm?

Is not our Author my Lords alſo in this Query guilty of another egregious miſtake? For the Foundation of Comfort which theſe Itinerants lay and depend on is the compleat and all ſufficient Righteouſneſs of Jeſus, and the New-Birth or change wrought in the Heart is by them looked upon only as an Evidence that the Perſons thus changed, have indeed got a Foundation on this Rock of Ages, and conſequently a ſure and certain Hope of a Reſurrection to eternal Life — And is not all this, my Lords, eaſily diſtinguiſhed from Fancy and Imagination? And does not our Author lead People to a wrong Foundation for Comfort, by directing them to look for it from a gradual Improvement in Grace and Goodneſs? For what ſays the Apoſtle? 1 Cor. 3.11. Other Foundation can no Man lay than that is laid, which is Chriſt Jeſus, — who (as he ſpeaks in the firſt Chapter of the ſame Epiſtle, Ver. 30.) is made unto us of God, Wiſdom, Righteouſneſs, Sanctification and Redemption?

This Foundation as well as this ſudden and inſtantaneous Change, whether wrought in or after Baptiſm, our Author, it is to be feared, is too great a Stranger to — At leaſt he gives too great Evidence that he has made but little Improvement in Grace and Goodneſs, for he aſks in his 11th Query, Page 13th, Whether the Frame of humane Nature fairly conſidered, the Author of the Whole Duty of Man, did not do better Service to Religion, in laying down Rules to keep Recreations of all Kinds within the Bounds of Innocence; than they who now cenſure him, and abſolutely deny that Recreations of any Kind, conſider'd as ſuch are or can be innocent?

What Rules the Author of the Whole Duty of Man may have laid down to keep Recreations of all Kinds within the Bounds of Innocence, it may be needleſs here to enquire— Is it not ſufficient, my Lords, to mention that the holy Scriptures (wherein the whole Duty of Man and that too in reſpect both to Faith and Practice is fully and really taught) lay down one golden univerſal Rule for Recreations and every Thing elſe, viz. that Whether we eat or drink, or whatſoever we do, we muſt do all to the Glory of God? Whatever Recreations, People take to the Glory of God, theſe Itinerants, my Lords, think are quite allowable — But if they are made Uſe of meerly for Self-pleaſing, and not to God's Glory; and to fit us for his Service, they do affirm, that all ſuch Recreations neither are or can be innocent — And if the Author of the Whole Duty of Man, or any other Author whatſoever hath ſet any other Bounds or fixed any other Rule, however fairly he may p. 20have conſider'd the Frame of humane Nature, is it not evident, that he has not fairly conſider'd the Frame and Nature of true Chriſtianity? For does not that, my Lords, turn our whole Lives into one continued Sacrifice to God? And if we fairly conſider the Frame of humane Nature how weak and frail it is, and how eaſily diverted from purſuing our one great End, are not thoſe the greateſt Friends to Religion who caution People againſt leading themſelves into Temptations, or making Uſe of any Recreation that may put them out of a ſpiritual Frame and unfit them for the Service of God? Is this going any further than the Apoſtle did, who ſo ſtrictly cautions Chriſtians not to grieve the Spirit of GOD whereby they are ſealed to the Day of Redemption?

Our Author under this Head has referred to a Paſſage out of one of my Journals, wherein I gave an Account of my being in ſome polite Company at Maryland who were diſpoſed to Cards, and alſo a Paſſage out of my Letter from New-Brunſwick, occaſioned, if I miſtake not, by meeting a Man who thought it allowable to play at Cards in the Chriſtmas Holy-Days, from the Liberty given him by the Author of the Whole Duty of Man— And will our Author allow playing at Cards to be a lawful Recreation for a Chriſtian? Is this one of the Recreations of all Kinds which may be kept within the Bounds of Innocence? Is it not a kind of caſting Lots? Has it not the Appearance of Evil? Is it not therefore forbidden in the Scriptures? Or if he will not hear the Scriptures will he not hear the Church? And what ſays the 75th Canon? No Eccleſiaſtical Perſon ſhall at any Time, other than for their honeſt Neceſſities, reſort to any Taverns or …, neither ſhall they board or lodge in any ſuch Places. Further …, they ſhall not give themſelves to any baſe or ſervile Labour, or to Drinking or Riot, ſpending their Time idly by Day or by Night, playing at Dice, Cards or Tables, or any other unlawful Game: But at all Times convenient, they ſhall hear or read ſomewhat of the holy Scriptures, or ſhall occupy themſelves with ſome other honeſt Study or Exerciſe, always doing the Things which ſhall appertain to Honeſty, and endeavouring to profit the Church of God, having always in Mind that they ought to excel all others in Purity of Life, and ſhould be Examples to the People to live well and chriſtianly, under Pain of eccleſiaſtical Cenſures to be inflicted with Severity, according to the Qualities of their Offences. An excellent Canon this! And may I not argue from it thus? Either this Canon is founded upon the Word of God, or it is not — If it be not, why is it not abrogated? If it be, why is it not put in Practice? Why do the Clergy encourage frequenting of Taverns, Alehouſes and Gaming by their own Example? Are not ſuch Practices in this Canon ſuppoſed to be quite contrary to the Purity of Life, and Excellency of Example which may be juſtly required from them? And p. 21if ſuch Things are unſeemly in a Clergyman, are they not in a Degree equally unſeemly in Laymen whoſe Priviledge as well as Duty it is to be holy in all manner of Converſation and Godlineſs, and who are univerſally commanded to ſhine as Lights in the World amidſt a crooked and perverſe Generation?

My Lords, might it not reaſonably have been hoped that your Lordſhips were too well acquainted with real and inward Religion, to think that a Soul born of God, and made Partaker of a Divine Nature can ſtoop ſo low, and act ſo unlike itſelf as to ſeek for Recreation in Gaming? Does not the glorious and plenteous Redemption, that great, inexpreſſibly great and preſent Salvation, which the Great High Prieſt and Apoſtle of our Profeſſion has purchaſed for us by ſhedding his dear Heart's Blood, and whereby we are redeemed from this preſent evil Worlds, ſet us above ſuch triflng Things as theſe, ſuppoſing they were not directly ſinful? Are not Chriſtians Kings and Prieſts unto God? And is it not as much beneath the Dignity of their Heaven-born Spirits to ſtoop to ſo low an Amuſement as Gaming of any kind, as ever it was beneath the Dignity of the Roman Emperor to ſpend his Time in the Royal Amuſement of catching Flies? — Does not our Author therefore, my Lords, by writing thus ſtrike at the very Vitals of Religion, and prove too plainly that he is a Stranger to that Power of the dear Redeemer's Reſurrection? Need we therefore wonder at his 12th Query, Page 12th, which immediately follows the foregoing one? wherein he enquires, Whether the ſtrong Expreſſions which are found in their printed Journals, of extraordinary Preſences of God directing and aſſiſting them … a more immediate Manner, do not need ſome Teſtimonies of a divine Miſſion, to clear them from the Charge of Enthuſiaſm? Under this Query our Author has alſo mentioned ſeveral Paſſages of my Journals extracted by my Lord of London, in his laſt paſtoral Letter againſt Luke warmneſs and Enthuſiaſm, and has alſo been at great Pains to extract many more out of my four laſt Journals which have been printed ſince, and which according to our Author, are more full of Enthuſiaſm, if poſſible, than the three firſt? — But does not this Author forget that I anſwered his Lordſhip's Letter, and in that proved, that his Lordſhip was miſtaken in his Definition of Enthuſiaſm; and that according to his Definition I was no Enthuſiaſt? Did I not alſo prove, that the Propoſitions on which his Lordſhip's Quotations were founded were falſe? Has his Lordſhip or any one for him been pleaſed to make any Reply to that Anſwer? Not as I have heard of — And therefore was it not incumbent upon this Author, my Lords, to have diſproved or invalidated my Anſwer to his Lordſhip's Letter before he could honourably mention the Paſſages referred to therein to prove me an Enthuſiaſt? But paſſing by this with other many Irregularities which are juſtly charged upon this Anonymous Author, if p. 22he aſks whether the ſtrong Expreſſions which are found in their (I ſuppoſe he would have ſaid his) printed Journals, for I find under this Query no Journals referred to but mine, of extraordinary Preſences of God directing & aſſiſting them in a more immediate Manner, do not need ſome Teſtimonies of a Divine Miſſion, to clear them from the Charge of Enthuſiaſm? I would aſk this Author again, what Teſtimonies he would have? Can he bring any Proof againſt the Matters of Fact recorded in theſe Journals▪ Or will he venture to affirm that I did not feel the Divine Preſence in an extraordinary Manner, that is more at one Time than another? Or that I have not been directed in a more immediate Manner, at certain Times when waiting upon God? Were not ſuch like Queries put by the Heathens to the primitive Chriſtians? And was not their Anſwer, Monſtrare nequeo, ſentio tantum? I would further aſk, what this Author means by a Divine Miſſion? Did not my Lord of Glouceſter (for I muſt again repeat it) give me … Apoſtolical one when he ſaid, "Receive thou the Holy Ghoſt by the Impoſition of our Hands?" And can it be Enthuſiaſm, or is there any Thing extraordinary in ſaying, that I felt more of the Influences of this Holy Ghoſt, and was aſſiſted in a more immediate Manner in my Adminiſtrations at one Time than another? Or is it not more extraordinary (only indeed that it has been a good while too too common) that the Right Reverend the Biſhops ſhould take upon them to confer the Holy Ghoſt, and the Reverend the Clergy, profeſs they are inwardly moved by it, and yet charge every Expreſſion they meet with, wherein his bleſſed Influences are ſpoke of as felt and experienced, with being downwright Enthuſiaſm? But what ſhall we ſay? The natural Man diſcerneth not the Things of the Spirit, they are Fooliſhneſs unto him, neither can he underſtand them, becauſe they are ſpiritually diſcerned— What if ſome of the Expreſſions, my Lords, in the Journals are ſtrong? Does that prove them Enthuſiaſtical? Or what if feeling the Preſence of God and being directed in a more immediate Manner be ſomething extraordinary to our Author, does it therefore follow that it is ſo to others? Or is this Author like minded with the Right Reverend the Biſhop and the Reverend the Clergy of the Dioceſs of Litchfield and Coventry, who reckon the Indwelling, and inward Witneſſing of, as alſo praying and preaching by the Spirit among the kariſmata the miraculous Gifts conferred on the primitive Church, and which have long ſince ceaſed? If ſo, no Wonder that the Expreſſions referred to are ſtrong and extraordinary to him — But my Lords, may I not beg Leave to tell this Author that theſe Itinerant Preachers have not ſo learnt Chriſt? No, they believe that Jeſus is the ſame Yeſterday, to Day and for ever — And that he is faithful who hath ſaid to his Apoſtles, and in them to all ſucceeding truly Chriſtian Miniſters, Lo, I am with you always even to the End of the World— Conſequently they believe the Comforter will abide with them for p. 23ever, witneſſing with their Spirits that they are Children of God, leading them by a diligent Search of the holy Scriptures into all Truth, guiding them together with the Word, the Voice of Friends and Providence in all Circumſtances by his Counſel, giving them Utterance when called to ſpeak to the People from God, and helping their Infirmities, and aſſiſting them in Prayer when called to ſpeak to God for the People—Inwardly moved by this Spirit, and not any Hopes of human Grandeur or Preferment, theſe Itinerants, my Lords, firſt took on them the Adminiſtration of the Church, and his bleſſed Influences they have from Time to Time happily experienced, as Thouſands whoſe Eyes have been opened to diſcern ſpiritual Things can teſtify. And being without Cauſe denied the Uſe of their Brethrens Pulpits, and having obtained Help from God, they continue to this Day witneſſing both to ſmall and great the grand Doctrines of the Reformation, Juſtification by Faith alone in the imputed Righteouſneſs of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Neceſſity of the Indwelling of the Spirit in order to be made meet to be Partakers of the heavenly Inheritance among all them that are ſanctified — In doing thus they know of no wholſome Rules, wiſely and piouſly eſtabliſhed "by the Powers Spiritual and Temporal", Query 9th, Page 12th, which they have violated, or ſhould they be commanded by the whole Bench of Biſhops to ſpeak no more of this Doctrine — they have an Anſwer ready We cannot but ſpeak the things that we know — We take this to be an ungodly Admonition, and therefore whether it be right in the Sight of God to obey Man rather than God judge ye — And tho' for ſo doing they ſhould be mobbed, as they frequently have been, and tho' God be not the Author of Confuſion or Tumult, as our Author would have it Page 12th, yet they know of one who was mobbed himſelf upon a like Account, & commanded Timothy to approve himſelf a Miniſter of God in Tumults.—Being ſenſible of the Indolence and Unorthodoxy of the Generality of the Clergy, they think they are ſufficiently warranted by the Example of the Prophets of the Old and Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles in the New-Teſtament, (whatſoever our Author may ſay Query 8th. Pag. 11.) to bear a faithful Teſtimony againſt them. And being called by the Providence of God abroad, after their unworthy Labours had been bleſs'd at Home, they have judged it meet, right and their bounden Duty from Time to Time to publiſh Accounts of what God had done for their own and other People's Souls— Which tho' deſpiſed by ſome, and eſteemed Enthuſiaſtical by others, have been owned to the Inſtruction and Edification of Thouſands— But whether this may be properly called open and publick Boaſting, unbecoming the Modeſty and Self-denial of a Miniſter of the Goſpel, eſpecially one who would be tho't to carry on his Miniſtry under the immediate Guidance of the bleſſed Spirit, (as our Author intimates in his laſt Query of this 2d Part;) or whether they were wrote with a ſingle Eye to the Redeemer's Glory, they are willing to leave p. 24to the Determination of that God, to whom all Hearts are open, all Deſires known, and from whom no Secrets are hid — I could here enlarge— But having detained your Lordſhips too long already, I chuſe to refer what I have further to ſay on theſe Heads to a Third Letter, which God willing ſhall be ſent another Opportunity, in Anſwer to the laſt Part of this Author's Queries, by, my Lords,

Your Lordſhips moſt obedient Son and Servant, GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

ERRATA.

Second Part. Page 9. Line 7. from the Bottom, for ſtrict r. exact— P. 13. l. laſt r. Incidit in Syllam, qui vult vitare Charibdin?

End of the text · George Whitefield, Answer to Pamphlet Upon the Conduct and Behavior of Methodists (1744)