ANANSWER

ANANSWERTOTheSecond Partof anAnonymous Pamphlet, entitled, “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect, usually distinguished by the Name ofMethodists:”IN ASECOND LETTERTOTheRight Reverendthe BISHOP of LONDON, and the other the Right Reverend theBishopsconcerned in the Publication thereof.My heart’s desire and prayer toGodforIsraelis, that they might be saved. For I bear them record, that they have a zeal forGod, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant ofGod’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness ofGod.Romansx.1, 2, 3.ASECOND LETTERTO THERightRev.the Bishop ofLondon,&c.On board the♦Wilmington, Captain Darling, bound from Plymouth to Piscataqua in New-England, August 25, 1744.My Lords,ITROUBLED your Lordships with a letter some time ago. I now proceed, according to my promise, 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 manyIrregularitieswhich are justly charged upon these itinerant preachers as violations of the laws of church and state; it may be proper to enquire, whether thedoctrinesthey teach, or 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? 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 manyIrregularities, 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 ofCharlesIId, any way affects the Methodists, as being loyal subjects to his majesty KingGeorge,♣and members of the Church ofEngland? 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 theirregularity 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 and 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 so contemptuously of these itinerant preachers, that itinerant preaching itself, is one of the many irregularities and violations 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, page11th(which for method sake I would here beg leave to make some remarks upon) bespeaks as much. For he herein submits it to the consideration of the♥public, “Whether, in a christian nation, where the instruction and edification of the people is provided for, by placing ministers incertain 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 powers conferred upon him, of preaching the word ofGod, and administring the holy sacraments, tothe congregationwhere 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 but to 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 (though 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 equallyirregular, at least as really violators of their ordination commission, as these itinerant preachers?♦“Willmington” replaced with “Wilmington”♠“religigion” replaced with “religion”♣removed duplicate “and”♥“publick” replaced with “public”✤“therunto” replaced with “thereunto”Our author in the following paragraph under the forementioned query tells us, “That the bishops indeed and also our two universities have power to grantlicenses to preach, of a larger extent, to such clergymen 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.” 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 who 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 purpose? 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 preachwithintheir churches and chapels? but have they any power, my Lords, to hinder them from preachingwithouttheir churches or chapels? No, blessed beGod, their power is limited within: hitherto can they go, and no further. And therefore supposing these itinerant preachers, though they have no licenses, do not preach within any churches or chapels, unless with the ministers or church-wardens consent, how are they justly charged with violating a law of the church, though they should preach without doors to as great multitudes as shall be inclined to hear them?He proceeds in the3dparagraph under this8thquery to write thus: “The practice of licensing itinerant preacherswas occasioned by the low talents of many incumbents in the more early days of the reformation, whose abilities carried 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, asGodbe thanked it does not, it would be ill supplied by our modern itinerants, who make it their principal employ, wherever they go, to instil 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 incumbents depart from the good old doctrines that were preached in the more 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, 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 instil into the people afew favourite tenetsof their own? Has the author followed them wherever they have preached, that he asserts this so confidently concerning them? Is it not to bewished 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. Is it not evident to all who hear them, that the favourite tenets which the itinerant preachers make it their principal employ to instil into people’s minds wherever they go, are thegreat 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 toGod’s wrath and eternal damnation: That the condition of man after the fall ofAdam, is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling uponGod: That we are accounted righteous beforeGod, only for the merit of ourLordand SaviourJesus Christby faith, and not for our own works or deservings: That they are to be accursed, who 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 instil such tenets, 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, asMephiboshethcomplained toDavidof treacherousZiba? Doubtless he hath slandered them. And wherefore does he speak so contemptuously of itinerant preachers? Is it not an amiable and honourable character? And may I not take the freedom of acquainting your Lordships, that if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their duty, (especially my Lord ofLondon, 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 public a short summary and 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 onSundays; 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 inChrist JesustheirLord.”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 be the superstructure?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 thepublic concerning any persons, ought he not to take heed that those queries are founded upon truth, and that the charges therein exhibited 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 hath done real hurt to the cause he would defend. The query already examined concerningitinerant 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 on truth, and contain charges against these itinerants, whereby they are as much wronged and unjustly vilified as everStephenwas, when theJewssuborned men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words againstMosesand againstGod, this holy place and the law.”To prove this, we need only examine the two queries which immediately follow the preface.Query1st.“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 suchexalted 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 public societies, and which christianity does not only require in all stations and in all conditions, but declares at the same time (Colossiansiii.22.Ephesians♦v.6.) that the performance even of the lowest offices in life, as untoGod(whose providence has placed people in their several stations) is truly servingChrist, and will not fail of its reward in the next world.”♦“5” replaced with “v” for consistencyQuery 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, tosuch heightsas make it fairly practicable by a very few in comparison, or rather by none?”His5thand6thqueries, page the10th, are like unto them. They run thus, “Whether those exalted strains in religion,and an imagination of being already in astate 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 muchlower dispensationthan themselves; though those superiors 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 consequence 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 itinerant preachers in general, or any one of them in particular. And therefore the Prebendary ofSt.Paul’s, who has been pleased to reply to my first letter, in vindication of this author, has done wrong in affirming, “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, page8th, that ’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 asuntoGod, whose providence has placed people in their several stations, is truly a serving ofChrist, 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 attained, 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 that 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 quintessence and highest degree of it. And the more we are conformed to the divine image, the more exact I 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 alibeller? And how will he undertake to prove, that any one of these itinerant preachers in particular, carries christianity to any greater heighth than he himself does, query13th, 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 is true, our author would appear an advocate for both; but does not histhird query, page9th, 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 withGod, 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 it’s queried, whether theydo 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 withGod, and of our being justified in his sight.” Our author it seems is for another way of salvation,query5th, page10th,viz., “for men’s gradually working out their own salvation, by their own honest endeavours, and through the ordinary assistances ofGod’s grace; with a humble reliance upon the merits ofChristfor the pardon of their sins and the acceptance of their sincere, though imperfect services.” This is our common divinity. This is what my Lord ofLondonin 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 the11tharticle? “We are accounted righteous beforeGod, only for the merit of our Lord and SaviourJesus Christby 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 and homily of the Church ofEnglandexpresly 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 withGod, 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 moral duties, 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,Romansvi.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 ame genoito; and so reply these itinerants, my Lords, “Godforbid.” For what says the12th, articleof our Church? “Albeit that good works,which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away sins, and endure the severity ofGod’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable toGodinChrist, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch 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 no 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 ofGod? for what says our13tharticle? “Works done before the grace ofChrist, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant toGod, for as much as they spring not of faith inJesus 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 asGodhath 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 judiciousMr.Chillingworthare very material to this purpose: For my part, says he, I do heartily wish that by public 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 judgmentMr.Chillingworthmight be remarkable for, I know not; but if by “universal obedience being necessary to salvation,” he means what our author does (or otherwise this quotation is nothing to the purpose) justification in the sight ofGod, thenMr.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 public authority. So that to wish for justification by faith alone to be put down by public 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 Prebendary ofSt.Paul’s) out of theHoneycomb of Free Justification, writtenby oneMr.Eaton, ofTrinity CollegeinCambridge, printed atLondonin the year 1642. “Free justification was first enjoined to be diligently taught, for the reformation of the church, by KingHenryVIII.but was by KingEdwardVI.and QueenElizabeth, 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 people’s sight of their lost estate, and woeful 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 withGod. For being justified by faith we have peace withGod,Romansv.1. and our assurance of free salvation byJesus Christ, and is therefore called the justification of life,Romansv.18. ‘For whomGodjustifieth, them he also glorifieth,’Romansviii.30.♦3d. “Because it is the chiefest cause and means to discover and suppress theRomishantichrist, 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.Galatiansv.13.♦A second point is not mentioned.4th. “To direct ministers,ὀρθοποδεῖνto go with a right foot to the truth of the gospel,Galatiansii.14. in sound preaching, and pure declaring of the word ofGod, 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 ofGod’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,Galatiansi.6. and yet is the true strength, happiness and safety of the whole land,Isaiahlxii.1–6.”“Hereupon, the5thpart of the sermon against disobedience and rebellion, established by QueenElizabeth, teacheth the commons, that such bishops or ecclesiastical persons, as by pride and ambitious rule, do by terms of error, schism, or heresy, hinder thismain light ofGod’s wordfrom the people,are thechiefest traytorsin the land: and the6thand last part largely teacheth, that such subjects and commons to whom, through ignorance ofGod’s word, this light of righteousness, and this sun of understanding doth not shine, although they may brag, as did sometimes theJewishclergy and people, that they cannot lack knowledge, yet are such by their blind dead faith, traytors toGod, traytors to their king, traytors to their own souls and bodies, and traytors to the whole land and country.”Thus farMr.Eaton. And whether he orMr.Chillingworthwrote 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 ofjustification by faith alone, carry christianity to an extreme? or, whether or not this author, by making moral duties a condition of our acceptance withGod, 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’s10thquery, page12th. “Whether it be for the service of religion, to discourage people from reading ArchbishopTillotson’s Sermons and theWhole 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 byChrist) endeavoured 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; 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 termedHalf the Duty of Man; and the former, like our author, contrary to the laws of church and state, makes good works aconditionof our acceptance withGod, and of our being justified in his sight. And though I might have spared myborrowed comparisonof putting the Archbishop on a level withMahomet, (for which I ask the public pardon,though perhaps even this confession may be turned to my reproach) yet I can by no means agree with our author in this samequery, page13th, that either his Grace, or the author of theWhole Duty of Man, explained the whole work of our redemption byChrist. For how can that be possibly done, without explaining the doctrine of justification by faith alone? And therefore, whatever good the Archbishop, 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, to the Author of theWhole Duty of Man, and to writers of that stamp:Incidit in syllam, qui vult vitare Charibdin?For, 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 toGodat all? What is this, my Lords, but,♦Pharaohlike, to commandGod’sIsraelto 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 ofEngland, and so by preaching up the doctrine of justification in the sight ofGod, partlyby works, and partlyby faith, bring them half way to the church ofRome? 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 tenor of their sermons? Do they not first labour to bring people to a real faith inChristas theLordtheir righteousness, and then exhort those thatbelieve, to be careful to maintain and shew forth their faith, by a constant uniform performance of all manner of good works?♦“Pharoah” replaced with “Pharaoh”How disengenuous then is this Author’s9thquery, page 12. “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 that they neither are, nor can be true christians, but by adhering totheir doctrinesanddiscipline, and embracing christianity upontheir schemes? All the while, for the sake of those schemes, and in pursuance of them, violating the wholesome 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 (though without proof, as he had done in the preceding one) with “setting up their own schemes, as the great standard of christianity,” and with telling people that “they neither are, nor 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, that the Methodists preach contrary to the articles of the established church? Or how does he or can he prove, that they affirm, “People neither are, nor can be true christians, without adhering to their discipline?” Where are any quotations to this purpose in his observations? Is not this, my Lords, allgratis 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 persons 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 inparticular communicated with the church ofScotland, and preached among the churches inNew-England? Do not the generality of the clergy cry out against me as a latitudinarian, and look upon me for so doing, as the bigottedJewsdid onPeter, for going unto the uncircumcisedGentiles; though 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, nor can be christians without adhering to their discipline?But further, how scornfully does he speak of these itinerants? He stiles thema few young heads. And how unwarily has he thereby shewed his ignorance of the lively oracles ofGod? For has he never read whatDavidsaith,Psalmsviii.2. “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength, because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and avenger?” Or that of the Apostle,1 Corinthiansi.27, 28. “ButGodhath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise; andGodhath 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, hathGodchosen, 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, unlessGodwas with them?But our Author, it seems, looks upon what they call success, in a different light, and therefore, in this9thQuery, 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 their infancy under a gospel ministry, and in the regular exercise of a gospelworship; 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 ofLondonwas pleased to extract out of my third Journal some years ago, such as, “I offeredJesus Christfreely to them;—I thinkWalesis excellently well prepared for the gospel ofChrist;—Received news of the wonderful progress of the gospel inYorkshire, under the ministry of my dear brotherIngham;—I was refreshed by a great packet of letters, giving me an account of the success of the gospel;—A most comfortable packet of letters, giving me an account of the success of the gospel.” But how do all these passages, my Lords, put all together, afford the least shadow of a proof of what this Author here lays to these itinerants charge? Or how can offeringChristfreely, and hearing and writing of the success of the gospel, be interpreted as perplexing, unhinging, 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 ofEngland, 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 thefundamental doctrineof the gospel, I mean justification by faith alone in the sight ofGod, must be necessarily every where preached down? Does notLuthercall this,Articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ? 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 theaged 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 roarings, agonies, screamings, tremblings, dropping-down, ravings, and such like, is by no means the great end proposed by these itinerants preaching, much less was it ever urged by them as anessential markof the co-operation of the Spirit ofGod. And therefore, my Lords, is not our Author very unfair in stating his4thQuery, page 10, as he has done: “Whether a due and regular attendance on the public 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 referred to?” Would not one 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 public 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 ofGod? 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 intosudden agonies and screamings,Actsii.37. when “they were pricked to the heart, and said untoPeterand the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved?” Or what would this Author think of the conversion of the Jailor,Actsx.29, 30. “whosprang in, and cametremblingandfell downbeforePaulandSilas; and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Or what would he think ofPaul, whotremblingandastonished,Actsix.6. said, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” and was afterwards, verse 9, “three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink?” Is it not to be feared, that if this Author had been seated upon the bench, and heard this Apostle give an account of his own conversion, he would have joined withFestusin 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 ofGod, written for our learning? Is notGodthe 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 assuddenlyandinstantaneouslyas in the first planting of the gospel church?But it seems, byQuery 7, page 10, that our Author doubts whether there be any such thing as asuddenandinstantaneous 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 doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous 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 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?” Here it is to be observed, 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 ofEngland, 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 him in the name of the blessed Trinity, does itnot follow, that if 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 asudden, instantaneous change, upon which the very essence of baptismal regeneration, thatDianaof thepresent clergy, entirely depends?Besides, with what confidence or rules of fair reasoning can he here enquire, “Whether agradual improvementin 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 and instantaneous change wrought on their hearers under their sermons,exclusiveof a gradual improvement in grace and goodness afterwards! But is not this mere slander? For however they may humbly hope, that Sinners, when deeply impressed, may be suddenly and 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 theirGod? Or if this was not the case, does not the author himself, if he holds baptismal regeneration, found his comfort on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change? And do not the greatest part of the poor souls now inEngland, 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 thefoundation of comfortwhich these itinerants lay and depend on is, the compleat andall-sufficient righteousness ofJesus, and the new birth or change wrought in the heart, is by them looked upononly as an evidencethat the persons thus changed, have indeed gotten 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 Corinthiansiii.11. “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which isChrist Jesus,”—“who (as he speaks in the first chapter of the same epistle, verse 30.) is made unto us ofGod, 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 his11thQuery, page 13, “Whether, the frame of human nature fairly considered, the Author of theWhole 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, considered as such, are or can be innocent?”What rules the Author of theWhole Duty of Manmay 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, that “Whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, we must do all to the glory ofGod?” Whatever recreations people take to the glory ofGod, these itinerants, my Lords, think are quite allowable: but if they are made use of meerly for self-pleasing, and not toGod’s glory, nor to fit us for his service, they do affirm, that all such recreations neither are nor can be innocent. And if the Author of theWhole Duty of Man, or any other Author whatsoever, hath set any other bounds, orfixed any other rule, however fairly he may have considered the frame of human nature, is it not evident, that he has not fairly considered the frame and nature of true christianity? For does not that, my Lords, turn our whole lives into one continued sacrifice toGod? And if we fairly consider the frame of human 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 ofGod? Is this going any further than the Apostle did, who so strictly cautions christians “not to grieve the Spirit ofGod, 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 atMaryland, who were disposed to cards; and also a passage out of my letter fromNew-Brunswick, occasioned, if I mistake not, by meeting a man who thought it allowable to play at cards in theChristmasholidays, from the liberty given him by the Author of theWhole 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 ofall kindswhich may be kept within the bounds of innocence? Is it not a kind of casting lots? Has it not the appearance of evil? Will he not hear the church? And what says the75thcanon? “No ecclesiastical person shall at any time, other than for their honest necessities, resort to any taverns or alehouses, neither shall they board or lodge in any such places. Furthermore, 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, ortables, or any otherunlawful 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 ofGod, 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, accordingto 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 ofGod, 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 if such things are unseemly in aclergyman, are they not in a degree equally unseemly inlaymen, whose privilege 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 ofGod, 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 world, set us above such trifling things as these, supposing they were not directly sinful? Are not christians “kings and priests untoGod?” 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 theRoman Emperorto spend his time in the 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 the power of the dear Redeemer’s resurrection? Need we, therefore, wonder at his12thQuery, page 12, wherein he enquires, “Whether the strong expressions which are found in their printed Journals, ofextraordinary presencesofGod, directing and assisting them in 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 ofLondon, inhislast pastoral letteragainst lukewarmness 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 proved, that his Lordship was mistaken in his definition of enthusiasm; and that, according to his definition, I was noenthusiast? 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 the other manyirregularitieswhich are justly charged upon thisanonymous Author, if he asks “whether the strong expressions which are found intheirprinted Journals (I suppose he would have saidhisprinted Journals, for I find under this Query no Journals referred to but mine) of extraordinary presences ofGoddirecting and 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 uponGod? 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 ofGloucester(for I must again repeat it) give me an 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 amore immediate mannerin my administrations at one time, than another? Or is itnot 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 spoken of as felt and experienced, with being downright 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 ofGod, 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 diocese ofLitchfieldandCoventry, who reckon the indwelling, and inward witnessing of, as also praying and preaching by the Spirit, among thekarismata, 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 learntChrist? No, they believe thatJesusis 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 ever, witnessing with their spirits that they are children ofGod; 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 fromGod, and helping their infirmities, and assisting them in prayer when called to speak toGodfor the people. Inwardly moved by this Spirit, and not by 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 thousandswhose 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 fromGod, they continue to this day, witnessing both to small and great the grand doctrines of the Reformation,justification by faith alonein the imputed righteousness ofJesus Christ, and the necessity of theindwelling of the Spiritin 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 “wholesome rules, wisely and piously established by the powers spiritual and temporal,”Query9th, page 12. 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 ofGod, to obey man rather thanGod, judge ye.” And though for so doing, they should be mobbed, as they frequently have been, and thoughGodbe not the author of confusion or tumult, as our Author would have it, page 12, yet they know of one who was mobbed himself upon a like account, and commandedTimothyto approve himself a minister ofGodin 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 ofJesus Christand his Apostles in the New-Testament, (whatsoever our Author may say,Query8thpage 11.) to bear a faithful testimony against them. And being called by the Providence ofGodabroad, after their unworthy labours had been blessed at home, they have judged it meet, right, and their bounden duty, from time to time, to publish accounts of whatGodhad done for their own and other people’s souls: which, though 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 public boasting, unbecoming the modesty and self-denial of a minister of the gospel, especially one who would be thought to carry on his ministry under the immediate guidance of the blessed Spirit,” (as our Author intimates in his lastQueryof this2dPart); or whether they were written with a single eye to the Redeemer’s glory,they are willing to leave to the determination of thatGod, to whom all hearts are open, all desires are known, and from whom no secrets are hid. I could here enlarge; but having detained your Lordships too long already, I am,Your Lordships most obedient son and servant,George Whitefield.

TheSecond Partof anAnonymous Pamphlet, entitled, “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect, usually distinguished by the Name ofMethodists:”

IN ASECOND LETTERTO

TheRight Reverendthe BISHOP of LONDON, and the other the Right Reverend theBishopsconcerned in the Publication thereof.

My heart’s desire and prayer toGodforIsraelis, that they might be saved. For I bear them record, that they have a zeal forGod, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant ofGod’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness ofGod.

Romansx.1, 2, 3.

ASECOND LETTERTO THERightRev.the Bishop ofLondon,&c.

On board the♦Wilmington, Captain Darling, bound from Plymouth to Piscataqua in New-England, August 25, 1744.

My Lords,

ITROUBLED your Lordships with a letter some time ago. I now proceed, according to my promise, 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 manyIrregularitieswhich are justly charged upon these itinerant preachers as violations of the laws of church and state; it may be proper to enquire, whether thedoctrinesthey teach, or 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? 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 manyIrregularities, 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 ofCharlesIId, any way affects the Methodists, as being loyal subjects to his majesty KingGeorge,♣and members of the Church ofEngland? 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 theirregularity 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 and 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 so contemptuously of these itinerant preachers, that itinerant preaching itself, is one of the many irregularities and violations 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, page11th(which for method sake I would here beg leave to make some remarks upon) bespeaks as much. For he herein submits it to the consideration of the♥public, “Whether, in a christian nation, where the instruction and edification of the people is provided for, by placing ministers incertain 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 powers conferred upon him, of preaching the word ofGod, and administring the holy sacraments, tothe congregationwhere 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 but to 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 (though 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 equallyirregular, at least as really violators of their ordination commission, as these itinerant preachers?

♦“Willmington” replaced with “Wilmington”♠“religigion” replaced with “religion”♣removed duplicate “and”♥“publick” replaced with “public”✤“therunto” replaced with “thereunto”

♦“Willmington” replaced with “Wilmington”

♠“religigion” replaced with “religion”

♣removed duplicate “and”

♥“publick” replaced with “public”

✤“therunto” replaced with “thereunto”

Our author in the following paragraph under the forementioned query tells us, “That the bishops indeed and also our two universities have power to grantlicenses to preach, of a larger extent, to such clergymen 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.” 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 who 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 purpose? 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 preachwithintheir churches and chapels? but have they any power, my Lords, to hinder them from preachingwithouttheir churches or chapels? No, blessed beGod, their power is limited within: hitherto can they go, and no further. And therefore supposing these itinerant preachers, though they have no licenses, do not preach within any churches or chapels, unless with the ministers or church-wardens consent, how are they justly charged with violating a law of the church, though they should preach without doors to as great multitudes as shall be inclined to hear them?

He proceeds in the3dparagraph under this8thquery to write thus: “The practice of licensing itinerant preacherswas occasioned by the low talents of many incumbents in the more early days of the reformation, whose abilities carried 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, asGodbe thanked it does not, it would be ill supplied by our modern itinerants, who make it their principal employ, wherever they go, to instil 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 incumbents depart from the good old doctrines that were preached in the more 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, 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 instil into the people afew favourite tenetsof their own? Has the author followed them wherever they have preached, that he asserts this so confidently concerning them? Is it not to bewished 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. Is it not evident to all who hear them, that the favourite tenets which the itinerant preachers make it their principal employ to instil into people’s minds wherever they go, are thegreat 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 toGod’s wrath and eternal damnation: That the condition of man after the fall ofAdam, is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling uponGod: That we are accounted righteous beforeGod, only for the merit of ourLordand SaviourJesus Christby faith, and not for our own works or deservings: That they are to be accursed, who 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 instil such tenets, 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, asMephiboshethcomplained toDavidof treacherousZiba? Doubtless he hath slandered them. And wherefore does he speak so contemptuously of itinerant preachers? Is it not an amiable and honourable character? And may I not take the freedom of acquainting your Lordships, that if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their duty, (especially my Lord ofLondon, 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 public a short summary and 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 onSundays; 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 inChrist JesustheirLord.”

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 be the superstructure?

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 thepublic concerning any persons, ought he not to take heed that those queries are founded upon truth, and that the charges therein exhibited 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 hath done real hurt to the cause he would defend. The query already examined concerningitinerant 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 on truth, and contain charges against these itinerants, whereby they are as much wronged and unjustly vilified as everStephenwas, when theJewssuborned men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words againstMosesand againstGod, this holy place and the law.”

To prove this, we need only examine the two queries which immediately follow the preface.

Query1st.“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 suchexalted 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 public societies, and which christianity does not only require in all stations and in all conditions, but declares at the same time (Colossiansiii.22.Ephesians♦v.6.) that the performance even of the lowest offices in life, as untoGod(whose providence has placed people in their several stations) is truly servingChrist, and will not fail of its reward in the next world.”

♦“5” replaced with “v” for consistency

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, tosuch heightsas make it fairly practicable by a very few in comparison, or rather by none?”

His5thand6thqueries, page the10th, are like unto them. They run thus, “Whether those exalted strains in religion,and an imagination of being already in astate 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 muchlower dispensationthan themselves; though those superiors 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 consequence 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 itinerant preachers in general, or any one of them in particular. And therefore the Prebendary ofSt.Paul’s, who has been pleased to reply to my first letter, in vindication of this author, has done wrong in affirming, “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, page8th, that ’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 asuntoGod, whose providence has placed people in their several stations, is truly a serving ofChrist, 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 attained, 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 that 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 quintessence and highest degree of it. And the more we are conformed to the divine image, the more exact I 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 alibeller? And how will he undertake to prove, that any one of these itinerant preachers in particular, carries christianity to any greater heighth than he himself does, query13th, 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 is true, our author would appear an advocate for both; but does not histhird query, page9th, 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 withGod, 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 it’s queried, whether theydo 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 withGod, and of our being justified in his sight.” Our author it seems is for another way of salvation,query5th, page10th,viz., “for men’s gradually working out their own salvation, by their own honest endeavours, and through the ordinary assistances ofGod’s grace; with a humble reliance upon the merits ofChristfor the pardon of their sins and the acceptance of their sincere, though imperfect services.” This is our common divinity. This is what my Lord ofLondonin 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 the11tharticle? “We are accounted righteous beforeGod, only for the merit of our Lord and SaviourJesus Christby 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 and homily of the Church ofEnglandexpresly 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 withGod, 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 moral duties, 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,Romansvi.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 ame genoito; and so reply these itinerants, my Lords, “Godforbid.” For what says the12th, articleof our Church? “Albeit that good works,which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away sins, and endure the severity ofGod’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable toGodinChrist, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch 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 no 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 ofGod? for what says our13tharticle? “Works done before the grace ofChrist, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant toGod, for as much as they spring not of faith inJesus 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 asGodhath 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 judiciousMr.Chillingworthare very material to this purpose: For my part, says he, I do heartily wish that by public 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 judgmentMr.Chillingworthmight be remarkable for, I know not; but if by “universal obedience being necessary to salvation,” he means what our author does (or otherwise this quotation is nothing to the purpose) justification in the sight ofGod, thenMr.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 public authority. So that to wish for justification by faith alone to be put down by public 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 Prebendary ofSt.Paul’s) out of theHoneycomb of Free Justification, writtenby oneMr.Eaton, ofTrinity CollegeinCambridge, printed atLondonin the year 1642. “Free justification was first enjoined to be diligently taught, for the reformation of the church, by KingHenryVIII.but was by KingEdwardVI.and QueenElizabeth, 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 people’s sight of their lost estate, and woeful 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 withGod. For being justified by faith we have peace withGod,Romansv.1. and our assurance of free salvation byJesus Christ, and is therefore called the justification of life,Romansv.18. ‘For whomGodjustifieth, them he also glorifieth,’Romansviii.30.

♦3d. “Because it is the chiefest cause and means to discover and suppress theRomishantichrist, 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.Galatiansv.13.

♦A second point is not mentioned.

4th. “To direct ministers,ὀρθοποδεῖνto go with a right foot to the truth of the gospel,Galatiansii.14. in sound preaching, and pure declaring of the word ofGod, 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 ofGod’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,Galatiansi.6. and yet is the true strength, happiness and safety of the whole land,Isaiahlxii.1–6.”

“Hereupon, the5thpart of the sermon against disobedience and rebellion, established by QueenElizabeth, teacheth the commons, that such bishops or ecclesiastical persons, as by pride and ambitious rule, do by terms of error, schism, or heresy, hinder thismain light ofGod’s wordfrom the people,are thechiefest traytorsin the land: and the6thand last part largely teacheth, that such subjects and commons to whom, through ignorance ofGod’s word, this light of righteousness, and this sun of understanding doth not shine, although they may brag, as did sometimes theJewishclergy and people, that they cannot lack knowledge, yet are such by their blind dead faith, traytors toGod, traytors to their king, traytors to their own souls and bodies, and traytors to the whole land and country.”

Thus farMr.Eaton. And whether he orMr.Chillingworthwrote 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 ofjustification by faith alone, carry christianity to an extreme? or, whether or not this author, by making moral duties a condition of our acceptance withGod, 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’s10thquery, page12th. “Whether it be for the service of religion, to discourage people from reading ArchbishopTillotson’s Sermons and theWhole 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 byChrist) endeavoured 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; 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 termedHalf the Duty of Man; and the former, like our author, contrary to the laws of church and state, makes good works aconditionof our acceptance withGod, and of our being justified in his sight. And though I might have spared myborrowed comparisonof putting the Archbishop on a level withMahomet, (for which I ask the public pardon,though perhaps even this confession may be turned to my reproach) yet I can by no means agree with our author in this samequery, page13th, that either his Grace, or the author of theWhole Duty of Man, explained the whole work of our redemption byChrist. For how can that be possibly done, without explaining the doctrine of justification by faith alone? And therefore, whatever good the Archbishop, 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, to the Author of theWhole Duty of Man, and to writers of that stamp:

Incidit in syllam, qui vult vitare Charibdin?

For, 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 toGodat all? What is this, my Lords, but,♦Pharaohlike, to commandGod’sIsraelto 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 ofEngland, and so by preaching up the doctrine of justification in the sight ofGod, partlyby works, and partlyby faith, bring them half way to the church ofRome? 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 tenor of their sermons? Do they not first labour to bring people to a real faith inChristas theLordtheir righteousness, and then exhort those thatbelieve, to be careful to maintain and shew forth their faith, by a constant uniform performance of all manner of good works?

♦“Pharoah” replaced with “Pharaoh”

How disengenuous then is this Author’s9thquery, page 12. “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 that they neither are, nor can be true christians, but by adhering totheir doctrinesanddiscipline, and embracing christianity upontheir schemes? All the while, for the sake of those schemes, and in pursuance of them, violating the wholesome 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 (though without proof, as he had done in the preceding one) with “setting up their own schemes, as the great standard of christianity,” and with telling people that “they neither are, nor 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, that the Methodists preach contrary to the articles of the established church? Or how does he or can he prove, that they affirm, “People neither are, nor can be true christians, without adhering to their discipline?” Where are any quotations to this purpose in his observations? Is not this, my Lords, allgratis 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 persons 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 inparticular communicated with the church ofScotland, and preached among the churches inNew-England? Do not the generality of the clergy cry out against me as a latitudinarian, and look upon me for so doing, as the bigottedJewsdid onPeter, for going unto the uncircumcisedGentiles; though 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, nor can be christians without adhering to their discipline?

But further, how scornfully does he speak of these itinerants? He stiles thema few young heads. And how unwarily has he thereby shewed his ignorance of the lively oracles ofGod? For has he never read whatDavidsaith,Psalmsviii.2. “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength, because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and avenger?” Or that of the Apostle,1 Corinthiansi.27, 28. “ButGodhath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise; andGodhath 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, hathGodchosen, 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, unlessGodwas with them?

But our Author, it seems, looks upon what they call success, in a different light, and therefore, in this9thQuery, 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 their infancy under a gospel ministry, and in the regular exercise of a gospelworship; 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 ofLondonwas pleased to extract out of my third Journal some years ago, such as, “I offeredJesus Christfreely to them;—I thinkWalesis excellently well prepared for the gospel ofChrist;—Received news of the wonderful progress of the gospel inYorkshire, under the ministry of my dear brotherIngham;—I was refreshed by a great packet of letters, giving me an account of the success of the gospel;—A most comfortable packet of letters, giving me an account of the success of the gospel.” But how do all these passages, my Lords, put all together, afford the least shadow of a proof of what this Author here lays to these itinerants charge? Or how can offeringChristfreely, and hearing and writing of the success of the gospel, be interpreted as perplexing, unhinging, 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 ofEngland, 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 thefundamental doctrineof the gospel, I mean justification by faith alone in the sight ofGod, must be necessarily every where preached down? Does notLuthercall this,Articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ? 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 theaged 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 roarings, agonies, screamings, tremblings, dropping-down, ravings, and such like, is by no means the great end proposed by these itinerants preaching, much less was it ever urged by them as anessential markof the co-operation of the Spirit ofGod. And therefore, my Lords, is not our Author very unfair in stating his4thQuery, page 10, as he has done: “Whether a due and regular attendance on the public 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 referred to?” Would not one 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 public 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 ofGod? 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 intosudden agonies and screamings,Actsii.37. when “they were pricked to the heart, and said untoPeterand the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved?” Or what would this Author think of the conversion of the Jailor,Actsx.29, 30. “whosprang in, and cametremblingandfell downbeforePaulandSilas; and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Or what would he think ofPaul, whotremblingandastonished,Actsix.6. said, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” and was afterwards, verse 9, “three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink?” Is it not to be feared, that if this Author had been seated upon the bench, and heard this Apostle give an account of his own conversion, he would have joined withFestusin 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 ofGod, written for our learning? Is notGodthe 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 assuddenlyandinstantaneouslyas in the first planting of the gospel church?

But it seems, byQuery 7, page 10, that our Author doubts whether there be any such thing as asuddenandinstantaneous 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 doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous 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 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?” Here it is to be observed, 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 ofEngland, 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 him in the name of the blessed Trinity, does itnot follow, that if 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 asudden, instantaneous change, upon which the very essence of baptismal regeneration, thatDianaof thepresent clergy, entirely depends?

Besides, with what confidence or rules of fair reasoning can he here enquire, “Whether agradual improvementin 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 and instantaneous change wrought on their hearers under their sermons,exclusiveof a gradual improvement in grace and goodness afterwards! But is not this mere slander? For however they may humbly hope, that Sinners, when deeply impressed, may be suddenly and 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 theirGod? Or if this was not the case, does not the author himself, if he holds baptismal regeneration, found his comfort on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change? And do not the greatest part of the poor souls now inEngland, 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 thefoundation of comfortwhich these itinerants lay and depend on is, the compleat andall-sufficient righteousness ofJesus, and the new birth or change wrought in the heart, is by them looked upononly as an evidencethat the persons thus changed, have indeed gotten 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 Corinthiansiii.11. “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which isChrist Jesus,”—“who (as he speaks in the first chapter of the same epistle, verse 30.) is made unto us ofGod, 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 his11thQuery, page 13, “Whether, the frame of human nature fairly considered, the Author of theWhole 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, considered as such, are or can be innocent?”

What rules the Author of theWhole Duty of Manmay 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, that “Whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, we must do all to the glory ofGod?” Whatever recreations people take to the glory ofGod, these itinerants, my Lords, think are quite allowable: but if they are made use of meerly for self-pleasing, and not toGod’s glory, nor to fit us for his service, they do affirm, that all such recreations neither are nor can be innocent. And if the Author of theWhole Duty of Man, or any other Author whatsoever, hath set any other bounds, orfixed any other rule, however fairly he may have considered the frame of human nature, is it not evident, that he has not fairly considered the frame and nature of true christianity? For does not that, my Lords, turn our whole lives into one continued sacrifice toGod? And if we fairly consider the frame of human 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 ofGod? Is this going any further than the Apostle did, who so strictly cautions christians “not to grieve the Spirit ofGod, 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 atMaryland, who were disposed to cards; and also a passage out of my letter fromNew-Brunswick, occasioned, if I mistake not, by meeting a man who thought it allowable to play at cards in theChristmasholidays, from the liberty given him by the Author of theWhole 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 ofall kindswhich may be kept within the bounds of innocence? Is it not a kind of casting lots? Has it not the appearance of evil? Will he not hear the church? And what says the75thcanon? “No ecclesiastical person shall at any time, other than for their honest necessities, resort to any taverns or alehouses, neither shall they board or lodge in any such places. Furthermore, 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, ortables, or any otherunlawful 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 ofGod, 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, accordingto 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 ofGod, 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 if such things are unseemly in aclergyman, are they not in a degree equally unseemly inlaymen, whose privilege 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 ofGod, 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 world, set us above such trifling things as these, supposing they were not directly sinful? Are not christians “kings and priests untoGod?” 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 theRoman Emperorto spend his time in the 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 the power of the dear Redeemer’s resurrection? Need we, therefore, wonder at his12thQuery, page 12, wherein he enquires, “Whether the strong expressions which are found in their printed Journals, ofextraordinary presencesofGod, directing and assisting them in 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 ofLondon, inhislast pastoral letteragainst lukewarmness 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 proved, that his Lordship was mistaken in his definition of enthusiasm; and that, according to his definition, I was noenthusiast? 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 the other manyirregularitieswhich are justly charged upon thisanonymous Author, if he asks “whether the strong expressions which are found intheirprinted Journals (I suppose he would have saidhisprinted Journals, for I find under this Query no Journals referred to but mine) of extraordinary presences ofGoddirecting and 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 uponGod? 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 ofGloucester(for I must again repeat it) give me an 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 amore immediate mannerin my administrations at one time, than another? Or is itnot 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 spoken of as felt and experienced, with being downright 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 ofGod, 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 diocese ofLitchfieldandCoventry, who reckon the indwelling, and inward witnessing of, as also praying and preaching by the Spirit, among thekarismata, 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 learntChrist? No, they believe thatJesusis 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 ever, witnessing with their spirits that they are children ofGod; 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 fromGod, and helping their infirmities, and assisting them in prayer when called to speak toGodfor the people. Inwardly moved by this Spirit, and not by 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 thousandswhose 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 fromGod, they continue to this day, witnessing both to small and great the grand doctrines of the Reformation,justification by faith alonein the imputed righteousness ofJesus Christ, and the necessity of theindwelling of the Spiritin 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 “wholesome rules, wisely and piously established by the powers spiritual and temporal,”Query9th, page 12. 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 ofGod, to obey man rather thanGod, judge ye.” And though for so doing, they should be mobbed, as they frequently have been, and thoughGodbe not the author of confusion or tumult, as our Author would have it, page 12, yet they know of one who was mobbed himself upon a like account, and commandedTimothyto approve himself a minister ofGodin 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 ofJesus Christand his Apostles in the New-Testament, (whatsoever our Author may say,Query8thpage 11.) to bear a faithful testimony against them. And being called by the Providence ofGodabroad, after their unworthy labours had been blessed at home, they have judged it meet, right, and their bounden duty, from time to time, to publish accounts of whatGodhad done for their own and other people’s souls: which, though 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 public boasting, unbecoming the modesty and self-denial of a minister of the gospel, especially one who would be thought to carry on his ministry under the immediate guidance of the blessed Spirit,” (as our Author intimates in his lastQueryof this2dPart); or whether they were written with a single eye to the Redeemer’s glory,they are willing to leave to the determination of thatGod, to whom all hearts are open, all desires are known, and from whom no secrets are hid. I could here enlarge; but having detained your Lordships too long already, I am,

Your Lordships most obedient son and servant,

George Whitefield.

Back to Index Next