Apology in Behalf of Mr Whitefield, Letter 2

Apology in Behalf of Mr Whitefield · Letter 2

p. 14The Second LETTER.

Jan. 8. 1744, 5. DEAR SIR,

THIS waits on you with ſome further Obſervations, on the late printed LETTER to Mr. Whitefield, objecting to ſome of his Meaſures, and calling upon him to vindicate his Conduct, or confeſs his Faults. I have ſpoken ſufficiently to the firſt Fact there alledged againſt him: And as there is nothing of Connection between that and the others, I have no Need of repeating any Thing already ſaid, to introduce my Remarks on our Author's ſecond Objection.

In the next Place then, you obſerve, Sir, he excepts againſt Mr. W—d's Conduct in publickly praying, and adminiſtring the Sacrament, without any Regard to the Form preſcribed in the Book of Common-Prayer. Our Author ſuſpects him to be herein acting, not a conſiſtent, but a wicked inſincere Part; and fears, this his Practice is an open Violation of what he ſubſcrib'd and promis'd at his Ordination, and afterwards ſolemnly, and repeatedly ſealed his Approbation of at the bleſſed Sacrament.

But, my Friend, as you are not wont to be eaſily impos'd upon with popular Inſinuations, with meer Sophiſms, or with Arguments more ad Pompam, than ad Pugnam: ſo I ſhall much wonder, if the Declamation upon this Head appears to you to have any real Weight in it, after it has paſs'd a proper Examination. For as pathetick and peremptory as our Author is here, I very much doubt whether he has not miſs'd the true Meaning of the Church-Clergy's Subſcription and Declaration he talks ſo much of,—as expounded even by Themſelves; and whether he has ſufficiently conſider'd the true Force and Extent of the Obligation reſulting therefrom, in Relation to their approving the Common-Prayer-Book, and uſing the Form in the ſaid Book p. 15preſcribed, in publick Prayer and Adminiſtration of Sacraments, AND NONE OTHER.

The firſt Step neceſſary to deciding any Queſtion, is to adjuſt and ſettle the Meaning of the Terms. And poſſibly, in the Subſcription or Declaration aboveſaid, it may admit of ſome Debate, what is the genuine Import and Intent of the concluding Words, NONE OTHER. I am confident, upon the ſureſt Grounds, this limiting Clauſe is not to be taken literally, in the Strictneſs of the Expreſſion, as if the Clergy meant to oblige themſelves to the ſole Uſe of that individual Form in the Prayer-Book, excluſive of all other Forms in every Caſe. For this Conſtruction is utterly forbidden by theſe two Conſiderations. (1.) It is contrary to the common Practice of the Clergy, who in their Prayer before Sermon pay no Regard to the Form in that Caſe preſcribed in the Canon; as I ſhall have Occaſion more particularly to remark hereafter.—And then (2.) It is contrary to the known Cuſtom of the Biſhops, in compoſing new Offices and Forms of Devotion, on ſome ſpecial Occaſions. It has been a Thing frequent, on Occaſion of a ſpecial Thankſgiving or Faſt, to have ſpecial Forms or Offices printed before-hand and diſtributed to every Pariſh, for publick Uſe in the Church on ſuch Days. I well remember, particularly in the late Queen ANNE's Reign, as by Means of the then-War there were frequent Occaſions of this Nature, I had the Sight of ſome of the Forms of Prayer ſpecially provided in that Caſe. And in them, I muſt obſerve by the Way, there were uſually one or two Collects for the Reformed Churches abroad:—which you'll pleaſe to bear in Mind for a future Occaſion, in the Sequel of this Diſpute.—Now theſe Reflections make it evident, to a Demonſtration, that when the Clergy of the Church ſubſcribe to uſe the Common-Prayer-Form, AND NONE OTHER, this is not to be taken in the rigid Senſe, as our Author underſtands it, abſolutely excluding all other Forms on every Occaſion whatſoever. No, but the Senſe muſt be temper'd ſome how, to reconcile it to the Cuſtoms in the Church, as abovemention'd. I can readily think of but two Conſtructions, to put upon the Words, that are conſiſtent. Ex. gr. Muſt the Words, NONE OTHER, intend—none other ſtatedly? This Conſtruction reconciles the Senſe to the Uſe of other occaſional Forms, enjoin'd by lawful Authority, ſuch as the new Compoſures made by the Biſhops, as above. But then I muſt obſerve, this Conſtruction does not ſo well ſuit with the Practice of the Clergy in ſtatedly praying before Sermon without uſing the Form preſcribed for the Pulpit-Prayer.—Shall we then ſay, the Words, NONE OTHER, muſt intend NONE DIVERS in kind, None elſe eſſentially varying from it. The Word, Other, is uſed either to denote a numerical Difference, or a ſpecifical Difference. But if we conſtrue it here in the former Senſe (i. e. None other ſo much as numerically diſtinguiſht from the Common-Prayer) we muſt ſuppoſe the Clergy chain'd down by their Subſcription to the Uſe of the Form in the Book, invariably, only, and excluſively of every Form not actually there written: which is a Senſe evidently p. 16confuted by the aforeſaid Cuſtoms in the Church, of Occaſionally uſing …, and of ſtatedly praying before Sermon differently from the Form enjoin'd by Canon. I ſee no conſiſtent Senſe then to put on the Clauſe, AND …NE OTHER, if we don't conſtrue it, NONE OTHER in point of ſpecifical Difference.—NONE OTHER but ſuch in Kind, NONE OTHER but of the ſame Reformed …. To this indeed I may apply the Character of Alter idem, or another, which is not another.—And very probably, Sir, the Clauſe [AND NONE OTHER] might be inſerted in the Clergy's Declaration, originally, with a particular View to the debarring Prieſts too Popiſ…ly inclined, from intermingling any of their Papal Superſtitions with the Reform'd Devotions, particularly in the Adminiſtration of the holy Sacraments. But I ſhall leave you now to judge for your ſelf, which of theſe Conſtructions of the Clauſe [AND NONE OTHER] is moſt …ational and conſiſtent. Chuſe but a conſiſtent Senſ… and I doubt not you will juſtify Mr. W—d's occaſionally uſing other Prayers than thoſe in the Book.

But further, let me obſerve to you, Sir, if we ſhould go into a critical Conſideration of what muſt be underſtood, by fair Conſtruction, as included in the Idea of PUBLICK PRAYER, according to the Idiom of Epiſcopal Language, it would perhaps be no impoſſible Attempt, to reconcile Mr. W—d's Conduct abroad with his subſcription and Declaration at home. Its well known, the PUBLICK MINISTERS (ſo; called) in England are Miniſters Epiſcopally ordered, in Conformity to the Book of Ordination: Such only are held Miniſters in the Church of England.—So, the PUBLICK CHURCHES there, are the Cathedral and other Collegiate Churches, the Pariſh-Churches, and Chappels, conſecrated to perform Divine Service in according to the Orders of the Church eſtabliſh'd by Law.—And thus, in the Senſe of the Subſcription before us, PUBLICK PRAYER is "common and open Prayer" in the publick Churches, the Houſes dedicated to the Uſe of "miniſtring in the Congregation, by the preſcript Form of Divine Service in the Church of England." At leaſt this is the Canonical Senſe of the Expreſſion. For the Conſtitutions and Canons of the Church of England know no ſuch Think as PUBLICK Prayer done in "private Conventicles"; or in "PRETENDED CHURCHES, which is the Canonical Denomination for all "Meetings Aſſemblies, or Congregations (of the king's born Subjects) within this Realm," OTHER than the Epiſcopal Congregations or Aſſemblies, By Law eſtabliſhed.—Nor in Truth are any deem'd PUBLICK OFFICES in Religion, other than thoſe performed in theſe true and lawful Aſſemblies, the only PUBLICK ASSEMBLIES in the Senſe of the Canons.—Now, according to this View of the Caſe, tho' ſome (obſolete) Canons of the Church may poſſibly be alledg'd against Mr. W—d's Conduct, in Point of frequenting Conventicles, or pretended Churches, and adminiſtring in private Meetings, as if the… were true and lawful Churches; yet with Regard to not uſing the Church-Liturgy in PUBLICK Prayer, I don't ſee he was either broken any Canon, or infring'd upon his Subſcription. I queſtion indeed whether the Clergy of the Church of England, hold themſelves p. 17obliged by their Subſcription to the like invariable Uſe of the Common-Prayer-Book in the private Offices of Devotion, as in Publick Prayer. And if the Nonconformable Aſſemblies are reputed but private Meetings, a Church-Clergyman occaſionally officiating in ſuch Meetings may eſteem himſelf at Liberty to ſuſpend the Uſe of the Forms preſcribed for Publick Prayer.

But, Sir, if you judge this Argument turns upon too critical Diſtinctions, and are diſpos'd to allow, that the religious Aſſemblies in New-England are properly, what our Author calls'em, Publick Aſſemblies, not what the Church-Canons cenſure by the Name of pretended Churches, or private Conventicles, and that therefore Prayer performed in ſuch Aſſemblies is in juſt Conſtruction Publick Prayer,—I need not ſtand to debate this Point with you at preſent.

Other Reaſons I have ſtill, Sir, why I can by no Means concur with our Author, in thinking that Mr. W—d's Subſcription to the ſpecial Article, refer'd to, obliges him ſo indiſpenſably to uſe the Common-Prayer-Forms, but that he may occaſionally omit uſing them, where he judges Free-praying moſt expedient and eligible (all Circumſtances conſider'd) as here in the New-England Congregations. For undoubtedly this particular Subſcription to that ſpecial Article about the Uſe of the Common-Prayer, is not juſtly to be ſuppos'd of more extenſive Obligation in Point of Place, than his general Subſcription to the 39 Articles of Religion. And if we conſult the Ratification at the End of the Book of Articles, this expreſly tells us how f…r they extend by Force of the Subſcription, being only "approved and allowed to be holden and executed WITHIN THE REALM" of England; and here it ſtops, without the Addition of "other Dominions," as elſewhere ſometimes. Now this Ratification is one Thing expreſly included within the three particular Articles, our Author refers to, as what the Church eſteems of great Importance; and I think, Mr. W—d has ſubſcrib'd to the Ratification in the 3d Article, as well as to the Uſe of the common Prayer in the ſecond. By a fair Conſequence then, laying theſe Things together, and interpreting the 2d Article by the 3d, his Subſcription to the Uſe of the Form in the Common-Prayer-Book preſcribed, AND NONE OTHER, muſt in Reaſon be conſtrued, at the moſt; but only an Engagement to uſe that WITHIN THE REALM, where it is by publick Authority eſtabliſh'd; and not be ſuppos'd to extend its Obligation indifferently all over the World, or even ſo far as New England, which tho' belonging to the King's Dominions, yet is not WITHIN HIS REALM, but is included under the Name of FOREIGN PARTS, conſtantly ſo apply'd even by the incorporated Society at home for propagating the Goſpel.

And that the above Remark is not without very juſt Foundation, it may further help to convince you, if you'll inſpect the Canon next to that our Author has alledg'd on this Occaſion. The 37th Canon requiring the very ſame Subſcription, in Caſe of a licenſed Miniſter's coming to RESIDE IN ANY DIOCESS, ſays, He ſhall not be permitted, THERE to preach,— p. 18unleſs he firſt conſent and ſubſcribe to the three Articles before mentioned, in the Preſence of the BISHOP of the DIOCESS wherein he is to preach—Now from the Tenor of this Canon it's evident, that the Article engaging a Clergyman to uſe in publick Worſhip the Church of England Form, and none other (whatever Senſe you put upon the Words) is only then obligatory to him, by Virtue of his Subſcription, while he is RESIDING in ſome DIOCESS, and offering himſelf THERE to preach.—Conſequently the Subſcriber, tho' here in New-England (or other foreign Parts) he intermits the Uſe of the Forms of Prayer, and Orders and Ceremonies preſcribed in the Communion Book, or the Book of Common-Prayer, yet he is not liable for this to the Penalties of the following (38th) Canon, under this Title,—Re…olters after Subſcription, cenſured. Nor yet of the 54th Canon, doom in ſuch as refuſe Conformity, to have their Licence taken from them.††N. B. Theſe are the Canons, which in a ſecond Letter to Mr. W—d, by Canonicus, are trump'd up and improved againſt him: And what I am ſaying in theſe Pages is applicable in Confutation of that trifling Piece, nor needs any further Notice to be taken of it.—For if New-England be no DIOCESS, nor Part of a DIOCESS; if New-England have no Prelate appointed over it by publick Authority, and reſiding in it, nor belongs to any Prelate's Juriſdiction, to whom it is by Law ſubject and accountable; I pray, Sir, who is there in this Caſe to call Mr. W—d to a Reckoning, and execute the Cenſure upon him as a Revolter after Subſcription, or a Refuſer of Conformity, becauſe of his omitting here in foreign Parts to uſe the Church of England Forms and Orders! If he is obnoxious to Cenſure, he is according to the Run of the Canons only puniſhable by the Biſhop of the Dioceſs, or Ordinary of the Place having Epiſcopal Juriſdiction. But if here be no Dioceſs, if here be no Biſhop. or Ordinary of the Place having Epiſcopal Juriſdiction, if here be no Juriſdiction Eccleſiaſtical under any Biſhop or Arch-biſhop, to which Mr. W—d is by Law ſubjected; the Conſequence is clear to me, that in vain do any pretend his omitting the Church-Forms, in his Miniſtrations here in our publick Aſſemblies, to be a puniſhable Breach of the Orders and Conſtitutions of the Church of England, or an Infringement upon his own Subſcription.

You are ſenſible, Sir, it's of the very Nature of Laws and Canons, that they refer to Place, and be circumſcrib'd within Boundaries fix'd and certain.—The Orders of the Church of England being limited to be held and executed WITHIN THE REALM, the Clergy's Subſcription to them muſt of Conſequence have but a local and limited Obligation upon them to Conformity; reaching at furtheſt only to an equal Extent with the Authority and binding Force of the ſaid Orders themſelves.—Our Author then can never expect to carry his Argument againſt Mr. W—d, unleſs he is able to prove, That no poſſible Change of Situation, no poſſible Alteration of Place in point of Reſidence, will infer any the leaſt Variation as to the obliging Nature and Force of his Subſcription; but that the Caſe is p. 19the ſame, wherever he is, and the Reaſon of the Thing the ſame, under all poſſible Variety of Circumſtances. Let him prove this, and he ſhall be mihi magnus Apollo.

But our Author might be ask'd if he thinks Mr. W—d is juſtly chargeable with violating his Subſcription, by miniſtring in SCOTLAND in like Manner as he has done in theſe Parts, without uſing the Epiſcopal Form of Religion?—For if Mr. W—d as thus managing there, is tho't juſtly to be acquitted, I ſhould think by Parity of Reaſon, his Conduct here ought not to be condemned in this Point; Becauſe the two Caſes, as they appear in my View of Things, are at leaſt very nigh parallel: and if here (Sir) you differ from me in Opinion, I pray the Grounds or your Judgment.—But if our Author, to be conſiſtent with himſelf, ſhould accuſe and cenſure his Conduct in SCOTLAND, as well as here, I think it's worthy of Conſideration, how egregiouſly he will thereby redect upon the Church of England as defective in her Charity, and violating the Communion of Saints. For Mr. W—d'ss Conduct there can't be condemn'd on the Foot of his Subſcription, without ſuppoſing that the Church of England intended, by impoſing upon her Clergy the Subſcription aforeſaid, to tie them up from occaſional Acts of Miniſterial Communion with all other National Churches; not excepting even her Siſter-Church of SCOTLAND, bordering ſo near upon her, and whoſe Proſperity ſtands ſo cloſely connected with her own. It muſt certainly be a ſcandalous Imputation on the Church of England, to ſuppoſe her ſo unconſcionably bigotted to her own eſtabliſh'd Form of Religion as to forbid her Clergy all occaſional Conformity to the different Mode of Worſhip in a Siſter-Church, when Providence gives them an Opportunity, and their own Conſcience puts no Bar in the Way. That were in Effect to renounce the Communion of Churches; this being very much ſupported and carry'd on by Clerical Communion, or the Interchange of mutual Offices of Love and Aſſiſtance between their reſpective Miniſters.

If you'll be pleas'd, Sir, to conſult the Articles, Canons, and Orders of the Church of England, and the Writings of her ancient Divines, you will ſee no Colour of Reaſon, for ſo diſhonourable a Thought of the Engliſh Reformers, as if they were for laying an abſolute Prohibition upon the Clergy of the Church of England, in Regard of Occaſional Communion with foreign Churches, in the Adminiſtration of any Branch of their miniſterial Office. I am perſwaded, thoſe pious Reformers never meant to exclude the Proteſtant Churches abroad from their Charity, tho' differently conſtituted in Point of Eccleſiaſtical Government and external Modalities in Religion. They never meant to ſet up the Church of England for the Head & Centre of Chriſtian Unity, expecting all other Churches to reduce themſelves to her Standard, upon Pain of being ſhut out from her Charity and Fellowſhip in the Goſpel.—No; ſo far from this, that whoever converſes with their Remains in Print, or with the Hiſtories of thoſe Times, will ſee abundant Evidence, that the Church of England, in that Day profeſſed a Catholick Communion p. 20with the Reformed Churches, and were firmly united with them all in Charity and Affection, as Members of one Body with herſelf. Nor can it reaſonably be ſuppos'd, they condemn'd the Miniſtry of all other Proteſtant Churches, while they did not renounce the Communion of the Churches themſelves. And I believe, none but ſuch as have their Brain heated with the ſtrange Fire of Bigotry to the Engliſh Epiſcopacy and Liturgy, and have got little narrow Party-Notions, the very Reverſe to thoſe of the firſt Reformers, can ever have it enter into their Head to imagine, that the Church of England has ſat up herſelf for the only true Church upon Earth.

Her 19th Article expreſſes no ſuch Schiſmatick Spirit; but frames the Definition of a Church lawfully conſtituted, in ſuch large and general Terms, as to comprehend all the Foreign Proteſtant Churches, as well as herſelf. Thus ſays the Article,—"A viſible Church of Chriſt is a Congregation of faithful Men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly adminiſtred according to Chriſt's Ordinance, in all thoſe Things that of Neceſſity are requiſite to the ſame." Bp. BURNET has this Remark upon it among others—We ought to ſearch the Scriptures, and then according as we find the Doctrine of any Church to be true in the Fundamentals, we ought to believe her to be a true Church: And if beſides this, the whole Extent of the Doctrine and Worſhip, together not only with the eſſential Parts of the Sacraments, but the whole Adminiſtration of them and the other Rituals of any Church are pure and true, then we ought to account ſuch a Church true in the largeſt Senſe of the Word True; and by Conſequence we ought to hold Communion with it.—Surely then the Church of England could not intend to confine her Clergy to her own Communion alone: and the Article leaves every one to the Exerciſe of his own private Judgment. The Biſhop's Expoſition of this Article might be confirm'd, I doubt not, from the Homilies and Prayers of the Church of England, and from the Writings of the Engliſh Biſhops and Divines in the beginning of the Reformation, which are the beſt Commentaries on the Articles. Remarkable is that Paſſage of the famous HOOKER, in his Eccleſiaſtical Polity (Lib. 3. Sec. 11.)—For my own Part, altho' I ſee that certain Reformed Churches, the SCOTTISH eſpecially and the FRENCH, have not that which beſt agreeth with the ſacred Scripture, I mean the Government that is by Biſhops, inaſmuch as both thoſe Churches are fallen under a different Kind of Regiment, which for the one it is altogether too late, and too ſoon for the other, during their preſent Affliction and Trouble, this their Defect and Imperfection I had rather lament in ſuch Caſe than exagitate, &c. —After this, Sir, I preſume, none can reaſonably imagine, the great HOOKER condemn'd and diſclaim'd the Miniſtry of the SCOTTISH, or other Presbyterian Churches abroad. And he doubtleſs ſpake what was the general Senſe of the Church of England in his Day.—But further, …is worthy of Remark, that ſometimes Miniſters having only Presbyterian Orders have been admitted (without Re-ordination) to officiate in the p. 21Church of England. For Inſtance, as Mr. Strype, in his Life of GRINDAL A. Bp. of Canterbury, informs us, the ſaid Arch biſhop licenſed Mr. John Morriſon, a Scotch Divine, to preach and adminiſter the Sacraments any where within his Province, by Virtue of his Presbyterian Ordination. In his Licence 'tis expreſly noticed of him, He had been admitted to holy Orders about five years before, by the Synod (or Presbytery) of Lothian, according to the LAUDABLE Form and Rite of the Reformed Church of SCOTLAND.—Again, 'tis obſervable, the Church of England has not ſcrupled to do publick Honour to the Church of SCOTLAND, even at a Time when the ſaid Scottiſh Church was presbyterian in her Conſtitution. For ſo it was, when the Canons were compiled: and yet in the 55th, which is the Canon preſcribing the Preacher's Form of Prayer before Sermon, it is there enjoined on the Clergy to pray for the Church of SCOTLAND by Name.—I hope, this has not been any Occaſion of the modern Clergy's cuſtomary Omiſſion of the Canonical Form.—However, I ſhall reſt it with your Judgment, whether it be likely, that the Church of England, which by a ſolemn Canon and Conſtitution appoints the Church of SCOTLAND to be expreſly pray'd for by all the Clergy, ſhould ever deſign to brand the Miniſtry of that Church as falſe or invalid, by Precluding her Sons from all occaſional Commerce therewith in ſacred Adminiſtrations: which muſt be the Effect, if ſhe has ſet ſuch Limits to them in Relation to the Uſe of the Common-Prayer, as that without this, they muſt on no Occaſion preſume publickly to officiate in the Church of SCOTLAND.—Again, Sir, it muſt needs be granted, the Church of SCOTLAND ſtands at leaſt on equal Terms with the Engliſh Church, as the Church of GENEVA. And yet, if you have ſeen a certain Letter from the Univerſity of OXFORD (dated Feb. 5. 1706.…) and approv'd by her Maſters and Doctors in a general Convocation, which they ſent to the Genevan Miniſters, you may obſerve, 'tis directed To the Rev. Paſtors of the Church of GENEVA: and in the Body of the Epiſtle you find their Teſtimony in theſe Words, The moſt celebrated of our Divines have ALWAYS been FAR from pronouncing ſuch a Sentence on your Church, viz. it's being deſtitute of LAWFUL PASTORS, and Sacraments rightly adminiſtred.—Now it's well known, the Church of GENEVA is Calvinian and Presbyterian; and yet by the ſolemn Act of this famous Engliſh Univerſity, 'tis expreſly own'd to have LAWFUL PASTORS and RIGHT Adminiſtration of Sacraments. In this, we may rationally conceive, they ſpeak but the real Senſe of the Church of England. And after this, can it with any Shadow of Reaſon be ſurmis'd, that this Univerſity, or this Church, wou'd refuſe Communion with the Church of GENEVA, by prohibiting her SONS occaſional Conformity there, or Communion with her lawful Paſters, by aſſiſting them in the Word or Sacraments rightly adminiſtred! Why then ſhould we imagine Mr. Whitefield, one of the Sons of Oxford, reſtrain'd by his Subſcription from communicating with the Church of SCOTLAND, as laudable a reformed Church as p. 22that of Geneva? It were a Reproach upon the Church of England, to ſuppoſe ſhe meant this.

I'm ſure, there's no Colour of Reaſon for this diſhonourable Tho't, from the Church-Article (23…) Of miniſtring in the Congregation: where we have a Definition of thoſe that are lawfully ca…ed and ſent to diſpenſe the Things of God. Look into it, and tr… …ir… … you can reconcile what is ſaid there, to a Suppoſition of the Church of England's denying her Clergy all Miniſterial Communion (in publick Act… of Office) with the foreign Churches. It is there expreſly ſaid, "Th…ſe we ought …o judge lawfully called and ſent [i. e. to execute the Office of publick Preac…ing and adminiſtring the Sacraments in the Congregation] which … choſen and called to this Work by Men, who have publick Authority given unto them, in the Congregation, to call and ſend Miniſters into the Lord's Fineyard."—Says Biſhop BURNET upon it, This is put in very general Words, far from that Magiſterial Stiffneſs, in which ſome have taken upon them to dictate in this Matter. The Article (ſays he) does not reſolve this into any particular Conſtitution: but leaves the Matter open and at large, for ſuch Accidents as had happened, and ſuch as might ſtill happen. Thoſe who drew it, had the State of the ſeveral Churches before their Eyes, that had been differently reformed, &c.—The Biſhop afterwards obſerves, We are very ſure, that not only Thoſe who penned the Articles, but the Body of this Church for above half an Age after, did—acknowledge the foreign Churches—to be true Churches, as to all the Eſſentials of a Church, though they had been at firſt irregularly formed, and continued ſtill in that imperfect State. And therefore the general Words, in which this Part of the Article is framed, ſeem deſigned on Purpoſe …t to exclude them. —He cloſes his Expoſition with this Obſervation,—And thus what Thoughts ſoever private Men, as they are Divines, may have of thoſe irregular Steps, the Article of the Church is conceived in ſuch large and general Words, that no Man by ſubſcribing it is bound up from freer and more comprehenſive Thoughts.

Now the Article (view'd in this Light the Bp…ſets it in) Mr.W—d has ſubſcrib'd to, and that willingly and ex…animo, believing it agreeable to the Word of God: And finding the other Churches abroad, tho' reform'd differently from the Church of England, yet by the Articles were not deny'd, but implicitly owned to be true Churches, and that "neither our Reformers, nor their Succeſſors for near 80 Years after the Articles were publiſhed, did ever queſtion the Conſtitution of ſuch Churches;" and finding himſelf, not bound up from thoſe freer and more comprehenſive Thoughts, to which he was diſpos'd, but rather bound to them, by ſubſcribing to the Articles of the Church; he did therefore juſtly conclude himſelf but in the Exerciſe of his lawful Liberty, if not Duty, while practiſing Occaſional Conformity in the Church of Scotland, and holding Communion with the Clergy there, whom, according to the Article, he ought to judge lawfully called and ſent into the p. 23Lord's Fineyard, and ſo to judge himſelf by his Subſcription obliged to receive and own as his Brethren in the Fellowſhip of the Goſpel.

I may further obſerve, that ſince the Union of the two Kingdoms, when the Church of Scotland (tho' differently reformed) was put on the ſame Foot with the Church of England, in Point of Legal Eſtabliſhment, it cannot (I think) be reaſonably call'd in Queſtion, whether the two National Churches, are not to be reputed in full Charity with one another, as Siſter-Churches, notwithſtanding their varying Conſtitutions, and Orders, Rites and Cuſtoms, in Point of Worthy and Diſcipline.—And in this State of the Caſe ſurely occaſional Communion of theſe two eſtabliſhed Churches with one another, particularly by their Clergy in publick Acts of mutual Aſſiſtance and Pulpit-Help in ſpecial, as they have …air Opportunity, and ſo far as may well conſiſt with the Conſervation of their reſpective …orms, Orders and Conſtitutions Eccleſiaſtical, appears one very ſignificant Expreſſion of their mutual Charity and chriſt… Union.—Where there's a Concord between two Churches in the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity, a known Unity of Faith, in Things neceſſary and fundamental, and beſides this an Unity of Worſhip, by an Agreement in all … general Things neceſſary and eſſential to chriſtian Worſhip, here's (as i… ſhould ſeem) a loud Call to mu…ual Forbearance, and Compliance in the leſ… Modalities of Religion as far as will ſtand with an upright Conſcience: and methinks, if it looks like a criminal Frowardneſs and ſchiſmatical Humour in one of theſe Churches to obtrude her peculiar Opinion and Practice upon the other in thoſe extra-eſſential Points, wherein they differ, as indiſpenſable Terms of Communion of Members, it is certainly worſe ſtill in that Church to interdict her Clergy from all occaſional Communion with the other, where they ſee Light for a Compliance. To ſuppoſe the Church of England hath done this, is to caſt a black Reproach upon her, as a Separatiſt from the whole chriſtian World: Nor indeed can I diſcover any juſt Foundation for ſo unworthy a Tho't of her. At leaſt I can ſee nothing at all in her Book of Articles, which the Clergy ſubſcribe to, that carries the Face of this: Nor am I appris'd of any authentick or valuable Expoſition, that carries the Senſe of them this Way. Forward Impoſers of Epiſcopal Forms and Orders may perhaps interpret the Articles into this Senſe▪ But I know of no Authority they have to interpret them for others. The Clergy, le…t to the free Exerciſe of their private Judgment, will doubtleſs interpret differently the common Rules, they have ſubſcrib'd to: and as every one has a Right to enjoy his own private Thoughts in diſputable Matters, ſo likewiſe has he a Right to act upon 'em, where he does not ſee ſuch Exerciſe of his Liberty will interfere with the publick Good, the avowed Deſign of all Law and Rule.

Accordingly Mr. Whitefield eſteeming himſelf at Liberty to conduct in the Caſe of occaſional Communion as ſhould (all Circumſtances weighed) appear beſt and moſt eligible in his own private Judgment, has been p. 24pleas'd to uſe his lawful Liberty when in SCOTLAND, by practiſing occaſional Fellowſhip with that allowedly true and reformed Church, and equally eſtabliſhed by Law as the Church of England, which he belong'd to. Nor, after this View of the Caſe, can I imagine e'er a Biſhop in England would preſume to call Mr. W—d to an Account, and cenſure him for his Occaſional Conformity and Communion with the Church of SCOTLAND. I think, this would be a flying in the Face of their own Articles and Canons▪ as well as of Scripture and Reaſon. As for the Word of God, the great Charter of our holy Religion, this not only teaches us, that there is one Lord, and one Body, but requires Chriſtians to keep the Unity of the Spirit; and therefore, when Providence gives an Opportunity, forbids them to refuſe Communion with a true Church, holding the Head, and in point of religious Rituals (as well as Opinions) impoſing nothing repugnant to Scripture-Rule.—As for the Voice of Reaſon, this confirms the Dictates of Revelation in the Caſe. Every one's own Reaſon muſt inform him, that Duty admits of Alteration according to the Variety of Times and Situations a Man may be in: ſo that what may be of Obligation in one Seaſon, or Circumſtance, is not ſo in another. For Inſtance, the Interpoſition of publick Authority may, in Things indifferent, very much alter a Caſe, and make that a Duty, or expedient, which otherwiſe we might think to be not ſo. At leaſt this is the Doctrine of the Church of England in her 30th Canon, which ſays, Things of themſelves indifferent do in ſome …ort alter their Natures, when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magiſtrate, and may not be omitted at every Man's Pleaſure, contrary to the Law, when they be commanded, nor uſed when they are prohibited.—I may juſtly add upon it, That where they are neither commanded nor prohibited by Law, and ſo are left in their native State of Indifference, here certainly it is at every Man's Pleaſure, either to uſe or to omit them, as he judges (upon Conſideration of all Circumſtances) wiſeſt and moſt expedient, both in Regard to his own private Benefit and the publick Good.—The Alteration of Place, in point of ſettled Abode, or occaſional Reſidence, very often produces an Alteration in point of Duty. It's a Maxim founded in Reaſon, that where the Grounds of any Duty no longer ſubſiſt, there the Obligation is diſcontinu'd. Thus the ſpecial Oath of a Juſtice obliges him while in his own proper County or Circuit: but ceaſes to bind him, in point of Action, when out of his Civil Boundaries▪ And, to reduce this to the Caſe before us, why ſhould it be tho't, the ſpecial Promiſe and Subſcription of a Clergyman of the Church of England, in Relation to the Uſe of her Forms and Orders, is any more binding to him when not perſonally within the Church or Realm? The main End of the ſaid Subſcription is doubtleſs to keep up Uniformity of publick Worſhip WITHIN THE CHURCH, and maintain the common Order of the Church within his Majeſty's Realm of ENGLAND. And how that is infring'd by Mr. W—d's p. 25occaſional Con…ormity, which he practiſes when abroad, out of the Bounds of the Church and Realm, is a Difficulty, that I want to have ſolv'd.

Mr. W—d, I conclude, is of Opinion with the Church of England in her 34th Article, which he has ſubſcrib'd with the reſt, and where we read, It is not neceſſary, that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all Places one, or utterly alike: for at all Times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the Diverſity of Countries, Times, and Men's Manners, ſo that nothing be ordain…d againſt God's Word.—Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to ordain, change, and aboliſh Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, ordained only by Man's Authority, ſo that all Things be done to Edifying. —Well, purſuant to his Subſcription to this Article, and in full Accord with the Principles there advanced, was Mr. W—d's Practice when in SCOTLAND; where he might juſtly hold himſelf, by this Article, at leaſt permitted and authoriz'd occaſionally to conform to the Mode of Worſhip in that Country, as not apprehending the …ame repugnant to the Word of God; and in Conſequence of this his Apprehenſion, might reaſonably look upon himſelf, by his Subſcription, oblig'd no… to offend againſt the common Order of the Church by Law eſtabliſh'd THERE, as well as not to offend, when in ENGLAND, againſt the common Order of the Church there eſtabliſh'd by Law.

Now the Ca…e, in Mr. W—d's View of it, as well as in mine, is much the ſame here in New England; which is a Country of Nonconformiſts, a People though ſubject to the KING of Great-Britain, yet not included within his Realm of ENGLAND, any more than his Majeſty's Subjects in Scotland; and who not only enjoy full Liberty of Conſcience by Royal Charter, but have our Eccleſiaſtical Immunities, Privileges and Uſages in Religion, rati…y'd and confirm'd, and fully ſecured to us by expreſs Law, under the ROYAL Sanction; as good a Tenure, for ought I know, if not as that by which the Church of England herſelf holds the Rights of her National Hierarchy in general, yet at leaſt as that by which the Biſhops hold their Right to govern by her Canons and Conſtitutions Eccleſiaſtical. If therefore Mr. W—d, tho' by Profeſſion and Character an Epiſcopal Clergyman, finds a Freedom in his Conſcience to aſſociate himſelf to the Communion of our Congregational Churches, and to miniſter in our Pulpits, he may juſtly repute himſelf virtually licenſed by the 34th Article of his own Church to do it, and by his very Subſcription inhibited and reſtrained from offending againſt the common Order of the Worſhip of God in this Land. So far is Mr. W—d, as a Miniſter of the Church of England from being legally forbidden, that he is rather legally required, and by Virtue of his own Subſcription ſolemnly engaged and bound to practiſe Occaſional Conformity to the receiv'd Cuſtoms and Uſages of the Country, in Religious Worſhip, tho' varying from the Epiſcopal Rites and Modes; while he ſees no Repugnancy in them to the Word of God, nor indeed (in Strictneſs of Speech) any Repugnancy to the p. 26Requirements of his own Church. For you are ſenſible, Sir, that then is one Law properly ſaid to be repugnant to another, when theſe Laws are not only of a contrary Tenor, but made by lawful Authority obliging to People of the ſame Place. This is plain, I think, in the Ca…e of Acts of Parliament touching Civil Matters: which, unleſs they expreſly name the Plantations, or his Majeſty's Dominions in America, or the like, theſe are taken to be not included within the ſaid National Laws; or at leaſt the Charter-Governments here are not underſtood to be precluded from their Privilege of making Acts and Laws touching the ſame Matters, of a contrary or different Tenor, which, nevertheleſs, are not deem'd repugnant to the Laws of the Nation.—Now, Sir, I believe, you are alſo ſenſible, that the Canons & Conſtitutions Eccleſiaſtical, in whatever Force at Home, don't at all affect us in foreign Parts, by dint of their own Authority, but only in the Caſe of voluntary Submiſſion: Nor can theſe Church-Canons be ſuppos'd to affect us, in the preſent State of our Civil Policy, unleſs by ſome Law of our own they were adopted and enforc'd, or elſe by ſome Act of Parliament they had their Authority and binding Force extended to the King's foreign Colonies, Provinces and Plantations in America. You may obſerve, Sir, that even King JAMES, in his Letters Patent ratifying and eſtabliſhing the ſaid Conſtitutions and Canons, does not carry his Injunction of obſerving and executing the ſame beyond the Limits of "the Province of Canterbury and York", in his Kingdom of England. Neither indeed does the Act of Uniformity itſelf touch the Plantations, but is confin'd expreſly to the Bounds of ENGLAND and WALES, and the Town of Berwick.—It is impoſſible therefore, I think, for Mr. W—d, in the preſent Caſe, to be Convinced of the Law as a Tranſgreſſor: for, as …aith the Scripture, Where no Law is, there is no Tranſgreſſion. For Sin is the Tranſgreſſion of the Law. Therefore, Sin is not imputed, when there is no Law.—And in Truth, as for ſuch in foreign Parts that have gone over to the Church of England, and voluntarily oblig'd themſelves by the Clergy-Subſcription, and Oath of Canonical Obedience, I am at a Loſs, among thoſe that exerciſe any Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction within the Realm, WHO it is that is their proper Biſhop, or Ordinary, to whom they are duly ſubjected, either by Royal Order, or by Parliamentary Deciſion; one or other of which, for ought I can ſee, in the preſent State of Things, is the only Foot, on which any Prelate of England can pretend a lawful Right and Authority to exerciſe Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction in theſe his Majeſty's remote Dominions, or have Power to enjoin the Church-Canons, Conſtitutions and Orders upon the Epiſcopal Clergy here, and in Conſequence thereof to puniſh Delinquents. And in my humble Opinion, if any Biſhop of the Church of England takes upon him to exerciſe ſuch Juriſdiction here without lawful Right, he makes an unjuſtifiable Excurſion beyond his proper Line; and his extra-dioceſan Cenſures in the Caſe of any Clergy-Man's p. 27being tax'd with Miſconduct in New-England, might be eaſily warded off by a foreign Plea produced in Court againſt him, or an Appeal à Judice non compe…e.

Now, tho' Mr. W—d did in England ſubmit to the uſual Subſcription and Oath, yet the Obligation upon him to Canonical Obedience cannot, in any juſt Conſtruction, be judg'd more than co-extenſive with the binding Force of the Canons & Conſtitutions themſelves, or more than commenſurate with the lawful Authority and Power of his Ordinary and other chief Miniſters of the Church, unto whom has been committed the Charge and Government over him.—It is worthy of Notice, Sir, that when the Governours of the Church do not enforce any particular Canon by their expreſs Injunction thereof, and Demand of Conformity to it in their proper Eccleſiaſtical Diſtricts, then the Clergy (as ſome of their moſt judicious Writers inform us, is their common Senſe upon the Caſe) do not hold themſelves bound by their Oath, to conform and obey in ſuch Inſtance: Nor indeed, if an actual Demand be made, do they look upon themſelves oblig'd to abſolute Obedience to the Canon, excluſive of their own Right of private Judgment, which (as … …ame Writers obſerve) is always ſuppos'd reſerved to them inviolate. And ſurely then, Where the Governours of the Church of England have no Power to execute the Canons, no lawful Authority to enjoin them, ſo conſequently no Right to demand Obedience, it's ſelf-evident, that There the Clergy's Oath of Canonical Obedience is of no Force to bind their Conſcience.—This Argument I think a full Vindication of Mr. W—d's Conduct (equally in New-England, as in Scotland) with Regard to his diſuſing the Church-Form in publick Prayer and Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, notwithſtanding what our Author has pleaded againſt him from the Articles and Cano…s.—And I muſt profeſs, upon the whole, I can ſee no Obligation on him, nor juſt Reaſon as yet for him, either to "renounce his Subſcription, or to alter his Conduct". He's reduc'd to no ſuch Dilemma at preſent: but without gratifying our Author in either Part of his Admonition, may ſtill "approve himſelf a Conſiſtent upright Man."

But ſo much for this Time. You'll excuſe the delaying my further Remarks, for the Contents of my next. In the mean Time, let us pray for Light, and Grace, and Peace, thro' our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, to be multiply'd to us, and to all his Miniſters and People.

I am, Sir, Your's &c.