Apology in Behalf of Mr Whitefield, Letter 3
The Third LETTER.
Jan. 14. 1744, 5. DEAR SIR,
I'M now a little at Leaſure to attend the LETTER in its next Paragraph, where our Author eſſays to obviate an excuſatory Plea, that he thought probably Mr.W—d might alledge in Favour of his Conduct, from the Example of "other the Church-Clergy, who may act as little conſiſtently, in other Reſpect But this, ſays he, is nothing to the Point in hand."—However, I think it not ſo generous a part in him, to refuſe Mr. W—d the Advantage of a Plea in Apology for himſelf, which if his Conduct be really culpable, be…ure will not juſtify, yet may extenuate it.—And if it be Fact, that Mr. W—d does herein …ct as conſiſtently as others of the Church-Clergy do in other reſpects, I can't… think with our Author, that his pleading this would be nothing to the Point in hand. For there may be Caſes, wherein approv'd general Example, or allow'd prevalent Cuſtom, which very much gives the publick or common Senſe of a receiv'd Rule, is juſtly im…rovable by a particular Perſon in Vindication of his Conduct, either directly with relation to that, or with relation to any other like Rule, by proportion, and parity of Reaſon. Thus, in the preſent Caſe of Subſcription to the ſtated Uſe of the Form of Prayer in the Common prayer-book preſcribed, in publick Prayer, and none other,—if the Meaning be ſcrew'd up to the Height, if the Expreſſion be underſtood in its Rigour, and taken abſolutely, without any Reſerve, without Exception of any poſſible Caſe, or any the leaſt Abatement of the Senſe, I ſay, then the whole Body of the Epiſcopal Clergy thro' the Nation, at home and abroad, are liable to fall into the …ame Condemnation with Mr. W—d, as Violators of their Subſcription. For (as already obſerv'd) it's their common Practice, in their Pulpit▪Prayer (or Prayer before Sermon) to vary from the preſcript Form; either inſtead thereof uſing ſome Collect in the Book, not appointed ſpecially for that Occaſion, or uſing a Form of their own compoſing, or elſe praying in the extempore-way, juſt as their ſeveral Inclinations lead them. The univerſal Example of the Clergy of the Church, in thus taking Liberty to order their Pulpit-Prayer, every Man as he pleaſeth, notwithſtanding they have ſubſcrib'd to uſe the appointed Form, AND NONE OTHER, manifeſts it to be the common Senſe of the whole Body of the Clergy, that they are not under an abſolute total Reſtraint from free-praying, in the publick Aſſembly, as our Author ſeems to repreſent their Caſe; and therefore that their Subſcription is not to be underſtood in the Strictneſs of the Letter, but admits of a qualify'd Senſe.—And it is a Conſideration, which ſerves to ſtrengthen my Argument, that notwithſtanding the Diſſenters have often alledg'd this in Controverſy, as a Vindication of their Manner of praying, againſt the Reproaches caſt upon it by certain Bigots to the Liturgy, yet it has occaſion'd no Alteration of the Clergy's Practice: And tho' ſome over-heated Zealots among the Church▪Clergy have often complain'd of this free-praying before Sermon, as an unwarrantable Innovation and Irregularity, which Diſſenters make an ill Handle of, to ſerve their Cauſe, yet it has never produc'd any public Cenſure on the Practice. Nay, I preſume, even the Biſhops conform to the prevailing Uſage, and do themſelves neglect the eſtabliſh'd Rule in this Inſtance, nor make any Scruple of uſing OTHER Form or Manner of praying before Sermon, than is by public Authority preſcribed in that Caſe.—It's well known, the Bidding Form (ſo called) is long ſince antiquated, and grown out of Date; no longer uſed I ſuppoſe, by a ſingle Man of the Clergy.—There is ſuch a Th… in F…ct, as Laws and Canons being antiquated, or generally and practically diſpenſed with, tho' never formally and authoritatively repeal'd. And in ſuch Caſe the Government does not interpoſe, to exact the Obſervance of thoſe obſolete Rules, or puniſh the Violation of them.—Therefore, Sir, You muſt not ſtrain the Point of Subſcription, as our Author has done in Mr. W—d's Ca…e, le…t you ſhould condemn the Body of the Clergy of this Generation, yea, and of paſt Generations too, as "acting a wicked inſincere Part," while varying from the Common Order of the Church, in the Inſtance above-mention'd. Surely we ſhould make all poſſible Allowances, to avoid breaking Charity: and the Caſe now before us has an equal Claim to our Candour, I think, as the other.
Do (Sir) but conſider Mr. W—d as ſtanding in an EPISCOPAL Pulpit, in any one ſuch thro' all England, Ireland, or America, and you'll find he is allow'd by Cuſtom, which they ſay is Common Law, to depart from the preſcrib'd Form, and to practiſe praying freely, juſt in the Manner he does at this Time in New England;—the ſame which, I ſuppoſe, he was wont to do in England, while he had the Uſe of the Publick Churches,—NO MAN FORBIDDING HIM. The only Difference is, that in that Caſe, beſides the Pulpit-free-prayer, there muſt be the proper Forms for the Reading-Deſk previouſly us'd, by himſelf or another.—While then you ſuſpect him of violating his Subſcription, you will do well (Sir) to take Care that you be not Partial in the Law.
Pleaſe, Sir, to conſider, as Mr. W—d is Providentially here in theſe Parts, and diſpos'd (ſo he ſolemnly profeſſes) upon the Principles of Brotherly Kindneſs and Charity, and the Communion of Saints, to cultivate a Correſpondence with the Churches and Miniſters of New England, hoping to ſubſerve the beſt Intereſt of this People, and willing for that Purpoſe to miniſter in the Congregations here, who are alſo willing (many of them at leaſt) to attend his Miniſtrations, but ſtill perhaps generally ſcrupulous of joining with him in the Uſe of the Liturgy; is there not a viſible Neceſſity, in the Caſe, if he officiates in Preaching, that upon the Goſpel-Rule of pleaſing others for their Good to Edification, and giving none Offence, he omit the Uſe of the Prayer▪Book on ſuch Occaſions, and pray memoriter, or pray extempore, or elſe not pray at all!—And if in ſuch Caſe he chuſes the unſtinted Way, Can any Man forbid the Uſe of a natural Right and a ſpiritual Gift, that he ſhould not pray in this free Manner, as well as we?—Nor indeed, Sir, is Mr. W—d the only Example in this kind, that has been known in New-England. An Inſtance, within my own Memory, I think it not amiſs to mention. A Clergyman of the Church, whom I was well acquainted with, and a Gentleman of ſtanch Conformiſt-Principles, both as to Epiſcopacy and Liturgy, as well as of a good Behaviour, I mean the late Rev. Mr. Chriſtopher Bridge, formerly QUEEN's Chaplain at the Chappel in Boſton, but afterwards of Rye, happning (I think it was the Caſe more than once) occaſionally in his Travels thro' Connecticut to be on the Lord's-day at Stonington (as I remember) where the aged and venerable Mr. Noyes was then Miniſter, and being kindly invited by him into his Pulpit, he readily comply'd to give him his Help, and in his Prayers before and after Sermon, conform'd …like Mr. W—d ▪ to the Cuſtom of the Place, making no Uſe of his Book; nor indeed making any Uſe of Notes in his Preaching.—I had the Account from his own Mouth.—And tho' the Bond of Subſcription was the ſame in his Caſe, as in Mr. W—d's, yet I cou'd never perceive that he himſelf in the leaſt ſuſpected his having violated it in that Article of his Conduct, but us'd to ſpeak of it as an Example of Candour on both Sides: nor can I learn that the Reproach was ever caſt upon him from any Quarter, of acting a wicked inſincere Part, in what he did on that Occaſion. I think, this is to the Point in Hand; nor can our Author turn it off with ſaying, it was an acting inconſiſtently "in other Reſpects▪" for Mr. Bridge and Mr. Whitefield appear to be in the ſame Predicament.
But to go on with our Author—
He next mentions a PROMISE the Clergy of the Church make at their entring into Orders, in Anſwer to a Queſtion put to them by the Biſhop; and which Mr. W—d "hath ſolemnly and repeatedly ſealed his Approbation of at the bleſſed Sacrament:" importing, that he reſolv'd "by the Help of the Lord, to give his faithful Diligence ALWAYS to miniſter the Doctrine, and SACRAMENTS, and Diſcipline of CHRIST, as the LORD hath commanded, and AS THIS CHURCH AND REALM HATH RECEIVED THE SAME ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, ſo that he may teach the People committed to his Care and Charge with all Diligence to keep and obſerve the ſame." Now our Author ſuſpects Mr. W—d's Practice in New-England by conforming to the Manner of theſe Churches, and not keeping to the Rules and Forms of his own Communion-Book, in miniſtring the Sacrament among us▪ is an "open Violation of his Promiſe" aforeſaid; and ſeems to think him juſtly accuſable of "aggravated Prevarication, to ſay nothing worſe."
But I think, Sir, the Difficulty here (take it at the worſt) is not indiſſoluble: but admits of much the ſame eaſy Solution, as that before on the head of Subſcription. This Declaration or Promiſe at entring into holy Orders …I mean ſo far as it relates to the PARTICULAR MODE of Miniſtration uſed in the Church of England, carries with it, not an abſolute and unbounded, b… only a local and limited Obligation.—Its binding Force upon the Pr… m…r, even at the very largeſt Extent in Reaſon ſuppoſable, is only while he is perſonally reſiding WITHIN THE CHURCH AND REALM, where the Epiſcopal Ordinances, Canons and Conſtitutions are receiv'd and held in Force.—Nor does the Particle (ALWAYS) which our Author puts an Emphaſis upon, alter the Caſe, or ſtretch the Senſe beyond the Bounds mentioned. You can't be inſenſible, Sir, that ſuch Terms of Univerſality, tho' deliver'd abſolutely, are often to be conſtru'd in a more lax and qualify'd Senſe: in many Caſes, the very Nature and Reaſon of Things obliges us to not take them in the moſt extenſive Senſe, but to put ſome Reſtriction upon their Meaning. Nor is it acting an ingenuous Part, to urge ſo mighty a Conſequence, as is depending in the preſent Caſe, upon the meer Force of a Word, taken by our Author in an unreſtrain'd, when it fairly admits of a limited Signification. And as it is here apply'd, it muſt be underſtood with ſome Abatements from the ſtrong univerſal Senſe. For Inſtance, underſtanding the Promiſe here of a direct Promiſe ALWAYS to miniſter, &c. may it not admit of ſuch limited Conſtructions as the following? ALWAYS ſo long as I am where I MAY miniſter in this Form and Manner.—(For what a learned Defender of the Church of England has ſaid about the Burial-Office in particular, I think is applicable as to all the Offices and Forms in general, "We [the Clergy]give our Aſſent to the Uſe of it, where it may be uſed, and that is all.") Or, ALWAYS, ſo long as I am reſiding in any Dioceſs:—Or, ALWAYS, ſo long as I am within the Church and Realm of England, where this Form of Miniſtration is received as according to the Commandments of God.—And it's obſervable, the Manner of Expreſſion in the Promiſe itſelf [as this CHURCH and REALM hath received the ſame] points us very plainly to the laſt Reſtriction. And I conclude, Mr. W—d, when miniſtring in the publick Churches, has never been wanting to his Promiſe, but ALWAYS careful to practiſe full Conformity to the Church of England, in his Sacramental Miniſtrations, during his Stay within the Realm.
But ſtill, upon a Review of this Promiſe, I find by the Tenor of it Room for another Reſtriction, which reduces the Obligation of it within the narroweſt Limits, not exceeding the Bounds of even that ſingle Congregation, where he has Charge. Surely, His Promiſe in Anſwer to the Queſtion put to him at Ordination, ought in all Reaſon to be interpreted as carrying an Analogy or Proportion with the Biſhop's Demand. Now the Words of the Queſtion run in this Connection, "Will you give your faithful Diligence ALWAYS to miniſter the Doctrine, and Sacraments, and Diſcipline of CHRIST, [as the Lord hath commanded, and as THIS CHURCH and REALM hath received the ſame, according to the Commandments of God] SO THAT YOU MAY TEACH THE PEOPLE COMMITTED TO YOUR CARE AND CHARGE with all Diligence to keep and obſerve the ſame? To which the Anſwer made, is this, "I will do ſo by the Help of the Lord."—Interpreting then the Anſwer by the Queſtion, it muſt be allow'd, the direct View of this Engagement is to a particular Charge; and the End expre…ly aimed at, is, Teaching the People committed to his Care, &c. This laſt Clauſe (in my Opinion) governs the Senſe of the whole Period: and plainly manifeſts the juſt Extent of the Promiſe here made. Hence then, according to the expreſs Letter of the Queſtion and Anſwer, if the Promiſe be underſtood of miniſtring by the publickly receiv'd Forms, and Rules preſcrib'd in the Prayer-Book, a Clergyman is not bound by his ſaid Promiſe, to obſerve the ſame in a Variety of Caſes that may happen; as, if he at preſent has not a People committed to his Care, or is occaſionally miniſtring out of his particular Charge, &c.—However, certainly it does not oblige him to impoſe the Epiſcopal Forms upon another Congregation, ſcrupling the Uſe of them, and yet where he may be both invited and inclined to miniſter.—I ſhall make no other Apology for this Way of arguing, but that if our Author is for taking the Advantage of a Literal Meaning in the Word—ALWAYS, uſed in the firſt Clauſe of the Paſſage before us, I think, he cannot conſiſtently refuſe me the Liberty of taking an equal Advantage from the Uſe of the Words—PEOPLE and CHARGE, in the laſt Clauſe of the ſame Paſſage.
However, Sir, I muſt confeſs, I have ſaid all this only by way of Argumentum ad b…min…, or in Accommodation to the wrong Notion of this Promiſe, ſuggeſted by our Author, I ſuppoſe, inadvertently. For if you'll pleaſe to review the Biſhop's Queſtion, 'tis obvious, that Mr. W—d, in his Anſwer, did not directly promiſe (whether ALWAYS, or otherwiſe,) in fact to miniſter—as this Church and Realm hath received, &c. but only that he would GIVE HIS FAITHFUL DILIGENCE always to miniſter—as aforeſaid.—Neither, did he, in this Place, promiſe ſo much as that univerſally and indefinitely, but with an expreſs Limitation to THE PEOPLE COMMITTED TO HIS CARE AND CHARGE. A Reſtriction evidently couched in his Promiſe, by the ſtrongeſt Implication. So that when in Providence he is excentrical to his ſtated Charge at any Time, he has a temporary Releaſe from his Promiſe, ſo far as relates to his miniſtring, or even to his giving Diligence to miniſter, according to the Church Forms. Notwithſtanding, for Argument's Sake, I will wave the Advantage of thoſe reſtraining Words, and grant that by Parity of Reaſon his Promiſe may oblige him beyond the Limits of his own particular Charge: Yet it is poſſible, in ſome Caſes, he may be punctual to his promiſe aforeſaid, tho' he actually miniſter in the Congregation without uſing the Epiſcopal Forms. For is it not a poſſible Caſe, that he may GIVE HIS FAITHFUL DILIGENCE always to miniſter, in the Way and Manner of the Church of England, and yet it be out of his Power ſometimes to miniſter thus in Fact? For Inſtance, when in his occaſional Travels he comes into a Place peopled wholly with Diſſenters from the Church of England, who being diſaffected to Book-praying, would take Offence at his uſing the Liturgy, but will gladly receive him without it, I don't ſee that his Promiſe binds him in this Caſe, to forbear miniſtring at all, meerly becauſe the People ſo prejudic'd won't ſuffer him to miniſter in the Epiſcopal Way.—Or, again, ſuppoſing there be Epiſcopal (as well as Diſſenting) Congregations in the Place, to whom, were Acceſs allow'd him, he would freely miniſter in the Uſe of the Church Forms, if in this Caſe he properly applies for the Liberty of Epiſcopal Churches, and ſeeks Opportunity to miniſter there, but meets with Repulſe, and Diſappointment in his Meaſures, I think, when he has thus GIVEN HIS FAITHFUL DILIGENCE TO MINISTER,—he has truly anſwer'd the Deſign of his Promiſe, ſo far as 'tis rationally ſuppoſable it can oblige him in ſuch a Caſe. Therefore in New-England, where the Epiſcopal Pulpits have been refu…im, if other Pulpits be open'd to him, and here (to avoid Offence, … for other good Reaſons) he thinks himſelf oblig'd to miniſter without … Church-Liturgy, I can't diſcern any ſolid Grounds, upon which the Charge of breaking his Promiſe can poſſibly in this Caſe be brought againſt him.—But in ſuch Caſe, he has in Providence a fair and clear DISPENSATION from his Promiſe (Conſider it in what Light you will) ſo far as it reſpects Liturgical Miniſtration; And if he gives his faithful Diligence always to minſter—AS THE LORD HATH COMMANDED, in ſome good Proteſtant Form or Manner, agreable to the Word of God, and agreeing (for Subſtance) with the Communion-Book and Book of Common-Prayer, he fulfils his Promiſe as far as under ſuch Circumſtances it can be thought to oblige him in Point of Conſcience.—I believe, this is the Light in which the Caſe is conſider'd at Home. Elſe what Account can be given of the publick SLIGHT, there put upon Commiſſary Garden's Conſiſtorial Proceſs againſt Mr. Whitefield at South-Carolina "for omitting to uſe the Form of Prayers preſcrib'd in the Communion-Book", when officiating in a Presbyterian Congregation? For Mr. W—d having interpoſed an Appeal in the Cauſe, from Mr. Commiſſary's ſpiritual Court to his MAJESTY in the high Court of Chancery, tho' when return'd to England he attempted bona fide to proſecute his ſaid Appeal, yet could not prevail with the Lords appointed by his Majeſty's Commiſſion, ſo much as to meet once on the Affair…;—they thinking, no Doubt, with ſufficient Contempt of Mr. Garden's invidious Proceedings not to ſay uſurped Power.—The Conduct of the Biſhops, and in particular of the Biſhop of London, the reputed Plantation-Dioceſan, towards Mr. Whitefield, in not exerting themſelves on this Occaſion, either to promote a Hearing upon his Appeal, or to cenſure him in ſome eccleſiaſtical Court according to Canon, as a Revolter after Subſcription, this their Conduct (I ſay) is to me unaccountable, unleſs we reſolve the Reaſon of it into this, that they were conſcious of his Innocence, as the Fact charg'd upon him was done in a Place not contained within the Limits originally intended in the Clergy-Subſcription and Promiſe to uſe the Church-Forms, and none other.—Our Author, I ſuppoſe, has that Charity for the PRELATES of England, to think "'tis with them, as well as with himſelf, no light matter for a Man to violate his Promiſe," eſpecially in ſo ſacred an Affair: but their Lordſhips not taking hold of the Occaſion given 'em by the Appeal, nor of any other Occaſion, to deal with Mr. W—d according to their Rules of Diſcipline, but letting him go FREE OF PUBLICK CENSURE, is a loud Intimation, that they deſpair of being able to prove the Crime upon him, of violating his Promiſe, and that therefore the Penalties, denounced in that Caſe, are not legally due to him. And as "certainly as it ſtands him in ſtead, to clear up his Character in this Matter," ſo certainly I think, this Conduct of Publick Authority at home (whatever Mr. Garden, or our Author may judge of it) is ſufficient for that purpoſe; and I believe, will be tho't, by the reaſonable and unprejudic'd part of the World, at leaſt ſufficient "to excuſe him [in their Eyes] from aggravated Prevarication," which our Author ſays "there are Many who know not how to excuſe him from, to ſay nothing worſe."—What worſe, he might think could be ſaid of Mr. W—d, I know not: however, this I'm well perſuaded of, that notwithſtanding all the Noiſe about his violating his Promiſe, there's Nothing in it, but I believe it will be found only groundleſs Jealouſy. And I wiſh, we may well conſider, that 'tis no light Matter for a Man to accuſe another of violating his Promiſe, eſpecially an Elder, and in ſuch a Caſe of more than ordinary Importance.—Nor can I deviſe how to excuſe People's treating Mr. W—d's Character in this ſtrange Manner, unleſs it be that they do it for want of due Conſideration, or Acquaintance with theſe Things.
Our Author, in his next Paragraph (Page 4, & 5.) deals with Mr. W—d about his ITINERATION, which he thinks incongruous to the Character of a profeſſed Miniſter of the Church of England, a Breach of his Ordination-Commiſſion from the Biſhop, &c. and therefore not conſiſtent with Honeſty.
I have nothing at all to do here, but to conſider this Inſtance of Mr. W—d's Conduct in point of Conſiſtency, which is the View under which our Author objects to it. The Scope (I think) of the Argument here againſt his Itinerancy is, that "the Authority, which Mr. W—d as a Miniſter of the Church of England had given him by the Biſhop," was limited in the Exerciſe of it, to "the Congregation where he ſhall be lawfully appointed thereto."—To which I ſay, if his Ordination Commiſſion did not give him Authority, as well to miniſter out of his particular Charge, as in it, then we may rationally conclude, his Ordination-Promiſe with Relation to the Exerciſe of that Authority, in uſing the Liturgy, reſpected him alſo only within his appointed Charge: and in this View of the Caſe, not his Subſcription, not the Articles, or Orders, or Canons of the Church, but his Commiſſion ought to have been objected to him before, at leaſt to ſhorten the Diſpute: Methinks, this Argument ſingly might have ſtood inſtar ominum.—Or, if his Commiſſion (in its true Meaning) did empower him to miniſter out of his particular Cure and Charge, then I think our Author's Argument from this Commiſſion carries no Force with it to condemn his Itineration. An Argument which proves too much, proves too little. But if the Words of the Commiſſion be taken exactly in the Letter, without allowing a Latitude of Senſe, this would diſempower the Clergy ſo much as to exchange Pulpits, or aſſiſt one another occaſionally; for this, by the foreſaid Rule of Interpretation, wou'd violate their Commiſſion, as well as Itinerancy. Here's a Reductio ad abſurdum, which I believe can't eaſily be ſurmounted: But our Author muſt relinquiſh his Plea from the general Commiſſion, and fly to a particular Licence.
And 'tis Fact, by the Conceſſion of Epiſcopal Writers, that the Biſhops (as alſo the two Univerſities in England.) have the Power to grant Licences, of a wider Extent than the narrow Diſtrict of a ſingle Congregation or Pariſh, even through the largeſt City, or through a whole Dioceſs, and the Archbiſhops through a whole Province, if they pleaſe, to any ordain'd Miniſters they think fit; "who in Virtue of ſuch Licence, may travel, if they will, from Place to Place, as Itinerants." The ſending forth itinerant Preachers was a Practice in the Church of England at the Beginning of the Reformation; probably in ſome Degree has been kept up all along; or if obſolete for any Time, has remarkably been reviv'd of late Years, particularly with Relation to foreign Parts. Mr. W—d is not the only Epiſcopal Itinerant in America. It's well known, that Itinerant Miniſters (under this expreſs Denomination) are avow'd by the Society at home for propagating the Goſpel, who have at this very Time a Number on their Miſſion. Thus "Mr. Morris in the Abſtract of their Proceedings, for 1743. is nam'd expreſly ITINERANT Miſſionary in Connecticut; Mr. Punderſon, ITINERANT Miſſionary in New-England; Mr. Lindſay, ITINERANT Miſſionary in Pennſylvania and New-Jerſey," with others.—In the general Notion then, Miniſters of this Character be judg'd agreeable to the Conſtitution of the Church of England, which our Author refers us to. We may well think, it's no Violation therefore of this original COMMISSION from the Biſhop, to act beyond the Limits of a particular Cure or Charge, or even in the Character of an Itinerant. And with Regard to a ſpecial LICENCE, I queſtion whether the Itinerant Miſſionaries above-mentioned have had this, any more than Mr. W—d. I ſuppoſe they all have the common Letters of Orders from the Biſhop: and why ordain'd Miniſters mayn't be thought ſufficiently authoriz'd to exerciſe their Office, without ſpecial Letters of Licence ſupervening, I cannot well underſtand. Nor does it appear to me a Breach of Canon, at leaſt no Infraction upon the Oath of Canonical Obedience, to act without ſuch a Licence. For the Oath is of Obedience to the Biſhop; not directly to the Canons. The Biſhop muſt interpoſe his Injunction, or Impoſition, before the Canon becomes binding: and even in this Caſe (as I have already remark'd) the Clergy apprehend themſelves ſtill in Poſſeſſion of a diſcretionary Power with Relation to their own Act of Submiſſion and Obedience; the Tenor of the Oath being, to obey the Biſhop only in omnibus …citis & honeſtis.—I don't ſee then but that Mr. W—d, though acting in Character of an Itinerant, may ſtill be acting a conſiſtent Part as a Miniſter of the Church of England; which is all our Author calls us to conſider.
There's one Thing more ſuggeſted in his LETTER (pag. 5,) on this Head of Conſiſtency, which brings us back again to the Article about uſing the Book of Common Prayer, which Mr. W—d ſubſcrib'd to, and yet has ſince in a Journal made that Remark, "When the Spirit of Prayer began to be loſt, then Forms of Prayer were invented;" and ſeems by the Connection of what he ſays there, to …hink "the Invention of them "a ſad Symptom of the Decay of vital Religion, as much as even "Preaching by Notes.—Now, Sir, whether he was of this Sentiment when he ſubſcrib'd, or has ſince chang'd his Mind, I don't ſee that the Conſequences our Author infers, will in either View of the Caſe, neceſſarily follow.
If Mr. W—d in fact has changed his Mind about Forms in Devotion, I think he may nevertheleſs be conſiſtent in blaming the Church-Clergy for violating their Subſcription to the 39 Articles: for theſe were deſign'd to ſecure Unity or Conſent of Faith; and the Clergy's Subſcription to theſe leaves them no Liberty to ſpeak or write contrary to what they've ſubſcrib'd; and hence, if in Points of Faith they "change their Minds" and teach contrary to their Subſcription, they are not "capable of being vindicated in the ſame Way," as Mr. W—d is; unleſs it is not poſſible for a Man with a ſafe Conſcience ſo much as occaſionally to uſe any Forms of Prayer, while yet he has an unfavourable Opinion of the Riſe of Forms. For it was only the Uſe of the Forms, that is reſpected in the Subſcription, according to the Opinion of ſome of the beſt Defenders of the Church. According to their Senſe of the Matter, Mr. W—d did not "ſubſcribe to the Book of Common Prayer", properly ſpeaking, i. e. did not (as our Author repreſents it) "ſubſcribe to all Things contained in it." If you will read (Sir) the Controverſy between Dr.Cal… my and his Adverſaries about Conformity, you'll find they declare, the true Meaning of the Subſcription is, not to give unfeigned Aſſent and Conſent to every Thing in the Common-prayer-book, but only to the Uſe of the Forms therein preſcribed: And that this implies in its Nature an Approbation even of the Forms themſelves (at the moſt) in Relation only to the Uſe, not the Impoſition of them. Mr. W—d therefore having ſubſcrib'd only to the Uſe of the Liturgy, might without violating his Subſcription alter his Mind about the Riſe of Forms, ſo long as this Change of Sentiment does not affect the Article he ſubſcrib'd to, and is not ſuch in its Nature as to be inconſiſtent with all Uſe of them, while he thinks the Matter of the Prayers agreeable to the Word of God, and the Caſe ſuch as makes Submiſſion to the Uſe of them expedient.—Whereas the Clergy's preaching contrary to, and condemning any of the 39 Articles, deſtroys Conſent of Faith, ſubverts the very End of their Subſcription, is a direct Violation of their Subſcription, and does not well conſiſt with their not renouncing it.
But indeed I ſee no Neceſſity of ſuppoſing a Change of Sentiment in Mr. W—d. For notwithſtanding an unfavourable Opinion about the Riſe of Forms of Prayer, yet ſo long as that Opinion was only ſuch as might conſiſt with the lawful uſing them, in ſome Circumſtances, he might look on himſelf at Liberty notwithſtanding, to ſubſcribe to the Uſe of the Liturgy WITHIN THE CHURCH AND REALM, and might judge it expedient in his Caſe. For, as he might poſſibly be acted with a View to ſome peculiar Advantages (as he thought) to ſerve the Ends of the Miniſtry, within the Pale of the Eſtabliſhment, Particularly in regard Epiſcopal Orders might "render his Miniſtry more currant & indiſputable and acceptable among the Generality of the People of England:" So perhaps he was partly inclined to ſeek Admiſſion into publick Miniſtry, upon Principle in Relation to Epiſcopacy, which he might be ſtrongly attach'd to, more than to the Liturgy, and might at the ſame Time think his Sentiment about the Riſe of Forms of Prayer not a ſufficient Ground of Separation from the Church of England. Theſe and other Conſiderations, of Weight with him to perſuade to his Continuance in the Communion of the Church, might more than counter balance his Opinion about the Occaſion of Forms being invented: eſpecially when by his Subſcription to the Uſe of them in Publick Prayer, he would obtain the valuable Liberty (as he thought) of miniſtring in the Publick Churches, which he could not enjoy without complying with the Terms of the Legal Eſtablishment; and eſpecially too when his Subſcription intended nothing more than a Declaration of Aſſent and Conſent to the Uſe of the impos'd Forms, with an Approbation of them only in Relation to their Matter, and to their Uſe in this Caſe of their impoſition. For thus ſays the learned Mr. O…y…e, in his Defence of Miniſterial Conformity. Forms of Prayer have both their Commodities, and Diſ…commodities.—We don't declare for the impoſing them, nor approve of it, or aſſent and conſent to it.—We are not at all concern'd in the impoſing, nor are we bound to declare, that That was well done, either in it ſelf, or in its Circumſtances.— The Act of Impoſition is the Governours Act: The Act of Submiſſion is ours.—The Declaration reſpects only what belongs to the Act of the Subſcribers, who may approve the Uſe of Forms, in various Degrees, and upon various Grounds; ſome meerly judging them lawful, and Submiſſion to the Uſe of them expedient, in their Caſe, upon weighing of all Circumſtances,—notwithſtanding their unfavourable Opinion of the original Occaſion of Forms being introduc'd.—I believe, a great Part of the godly Reformers ſubmitted to the Engliſh Liturgy, upon ſuch Conſiderations as thoſe: and ſuch Views kept many of the ancient Puritans from breaking off from the eſtabliſh'd Church, they were generally againſt Separation, nor did they ſeparate till they were perſecuted and thruſt out. This was very much the Caſe of our Forefathers, the firſt Planters of New-England: they ſtay'd within the Pale of the eſtabliſh'd Church as long as they might enjoy the Liberty of their Conſcience, in diſpenſing with ſome Ceremonies which they ſcrupled, and until the rigorous Impoſition of Miniſterial Conformity (in the higheſt Strain of it) at laſt drove them out, and oblig'd them to ſeek a Retreat in theſe Foreign Parts of the World.—I ſhall only add upon it, that when any Biſhop ſhall ſee fit to cite Mr. Whitefield, as a Delinquent, into his ſpiritual Court at home, I believe, he ſtands ready to make his Defence: and Perſecution may compel him to the Separation, which in the preſent poſture of Things mayn't appear to him either a Point of Duty or Expediency.
Alluding now to our Author's Concluſion upon this laſt Head, I finiſh with expreſſing my fervent Wiſhes for us all, both Miniſters and People, that we may have more of the wiſdom which is from above, and may have this for our Rejoycing, even the Teſtimony of our Conſcience, that in Simplicity and godly Sincerity, not with fleſhly Wiſdom, but by the Grace of God, we have our Converſation in the World: then, I believe, however we may differ in Sentiment, in ſome Caſes of leſſer Importance, we ſhall not divide in Affection. Yet if Paul and Barnabas contend too ſharply, God can overrule even this for the Furtherance of the Goſpel.
Bear me (Sir) upon your Heart at the Throne of Grace; and aſſure yourſelf,
I am Dear Sir, Your's very affectionately. ******
Juſt Publiſhed AN ANSWER To the FIRST and SECOND PART of an Anonymous Pamphlet, ENTITLED, Obſervations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect uſually diſtinguiſhed by the Name of METHODISTS.
IN TWO LETTERS TO THE RIGHT REVEREND The BISHOP of LONDON, And the other the Right Reverend the BISHOPS concern'd in the Publication thereof.
The Two PARTS of the OBSERVATIONS herein anſwered, are prefix'd.
By GEORGE WHITEFIELD, A. B. Late of PEMBROKE-COLLEGE, OXFORD.
BOSTON: Printed and Sold by ROGERS and FOWLE in Queen-ſtreet, near the Priſon. 1744.
End of the text · Thomas Foxcroft, Apology in Behalf of Mr Whitefield (1745)