67th page of the last journal, I gave an account of Mrs. _Jones_, which
I term, “a surprizing instance of the power of the devil.” It includes
the occurrences of three days. This you brought as a proof of my
enthusiasm. I answer, “the very words that introduce _this account_,”
prove it is no instance of enthusiasm: meaning by _this account_
(as I suppose is plain to every reader,) the following account of
Mrs. _Jones_. You reply. _It is not this account, which you had thus
introduced, but another, and a very different one, of what happened a
day or two before._ Sir, it is the whole account of Mrs. _Jones_ which
I thus introduce; and not _another_; not a _very different_ one. And
I attribute the agony which she (Mrs. _Jones_) was in; and most of the
words which she spoke, both on _Sunday_, _Monday_ and _Tuesday_, not to
the Spirit of God, but to the _power of the devil_.
6. The next instance, which you relate as an instance of despair, is
that of a young woman of _Kingswood_; which you break off with, “_Take
me away_,” &c. (page 112.) But why did you not decypher that, _&c._
Why did you not add the rest of the paragraph? Because it would have
spoiled your whole argument. It would have shewn what the end of the
Lord was, in permitting that severe visitation. The words are, (Journal
3, page 93.) “We interrupted her by calling again upon God, on which
she sunk down as before (as one asleep) and another young woman began
to roar as loud as she had done. My brother now came in, it being about
nine o’clock. We continued in prayer till past eleven: when God in a
moment spoke peace into the soul, first, of the first tormented, and
then of the other. And they both joined in singing praises to him, who
had stilled the enemy and the avenger.”
7. I am sorry to find you still affirm, that with regard to the Lord’s
supper also, I _advance many injudicious, false and dangerous things.
Such as, 1. That “a man ought to communicate, without a sure trust in
God’s mercy through Christ_, (page 117.)” You make these as my words;
but I know them not.――――2. “_That there is no previous preparation_
indispensably _necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever God
pleases to give_.”――――But I include abundantly more in that desire,
than you seem to apprehend; even a willingness to know and do the
will of God.――――3. “_That no fitness is required at the time of
communicating_, (I recite the whole sentence) _but a sense of our
state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness! Every one who knows
he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this, as well
as in all other ways of his appointment._”――――But neither can this
sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness subsist, without earnest
desires of universal holiness.――――_There was another passage_ (you
say) _which you chose to omit_. (page 118.) Which this was, I do not
understand. Nor do I perceive any one of these dreadful positions (as
you stile them) to be contrary to the word of God.
8. You will likewise at all hazards stand your ground, as to the charge
of _stoical insensibility_. I answered before, (page 36.) How do you
support the charge? _Why thus,――――You say, the servants of God suffer
nothing._――――And can you possibly misunderstand these words, if you
read those that immediately follow? “His body was well nigh torn
asunder with pain. But God made all his bed in his sickness. So that
he was continually giving thanks to God, and making his boast of his
praise.”
You reply, (118) _If you meant no more than that a man under the
sharpest pains, may be thankful to God, why did you call this a strange
truth_?――――Because I think it is so. I think it exceeding strange, that
one in such a degree of pain, should be continually giving thanks to
God. Not that I suppose him _insensible of his torments_. “His body,
I say, was well nigh torn asunder with pain.” But the love of God so
abundantly overbalanced all pain, that it was nothing to him.
_The next instance is as follows. One told you, Sir, I thought last
week there could be no such rest as you describe; none in this world
wherein we should be so free, as not to desire ease in pain. But God
has taught me better. For on Friday and Saturday, when I was in the
strongest pain, I never once had one moment’s desire of ease_ (add,
“but only that the will of God might be done.”)
Neither has this any resemblance of _stoical insensibility_. I never
_supposed_, that this person did not _feel_ pain: (nor indeed that
there is any state on earth, wherein we shall not feel it.) But that
her soul was filled with the love of God, and thankfully resigned to
his will.
_Another instance is taken from one of your hymns where are these
lines_: (page 119.)
_“Doom if thou canst, to endless pains,_
_And drive me from thy face:”_ (add,
But if thy stronger love constrains,
Let me be sav’d by grace.)
_This I thought the height of insensibility, extravagance and
presumption.――――You see nothing of these in it. And yet you explain
yourself thus, “If thou canst deny thyself, if thou canst forget to
be gracious, if thou canst cease to be truth and love.” All which
in my opinion, is fixing the charge most strongly upon you. For the
supposition that Christ_ can _do these things_――――Are you in earnest,
Sir? Are you really ignorant, that expressions of this kind, do not
suppose he _can_, but quite the reverse? That they are one of the
strongest forms of obtestation, of adjuring God to shew mercy, by all
his grace, and truth, and love? So far is this also from proving the
charge of stoical insensibility.
* * * * *
III. 1. I come now to consider the point of church-communion, of which
you have spoke in the beginning of your treatise. In the entrance you
say, _We teach no other doctrine than has always been taught in our
church.――――Our sentiments concerning justification are reconcileable
to our articles, homilies and service.――――This I apprehend several of
the Methodists have been convinced of, and have_ therefore _left our
communion entirely.――――You give us more instances than one of this in
your last journal._――――(page 2.) No, not one. Nor did I ever yet know
one man, who _therefore left the communion of the church_, because he
was convinced that either her articles, homilies or liturgy opposed his
sentiments concerning justification. Poor Mr. _St._ and Mr. _Simpson_
were induced to leave it, by reasons of quite another kind.
You add, _We cannot wonder, that some Methodists, have withdrawn from
her,――――while they have been used to hear doctrines, which they must
have been sensible, have no place in her articles and service._――――So
far from it, that all I know of them are deeply _sensible_, the
_doctrines they have been used to hear_ daily, are no other than the
genuine doctrines of the church, as exprest both in her articles and
service.
2. But our present question turns not on doctrine but discipline.
――――_My first business_ (you say) _is to consider, some very lax
notions of church-communion, which I find in your last journal._ Page
26, _you say, “Our 20th article defines a true church, a congregation
of faithful people, wherein the true word of God is preached, and the
sacraments duly administered_――――(page 3.) The use I would willingly
make of this definition, (which, observe, is not mine, be it good
or bad) is to stop the boasting of ungodly men, by cutting off their
pretence to call themselves, _of the church_. But you think, they may
call themselves so still. Then let them. I will not contend about it.
But you cannot infer from hence, that my notions of church communion
are either lax or otherwise. The definition which I occasionally cite,
shews nothing of my sentiments on that head. And for any thing which
occurs in this page, they may be strict or loose, right or wrong.
You add, _It will be requisite_, (page 5.) _in order to approve
yourself a minister of our church, that you follow her rules and
orders.――――That you constantly conform to the method of worship she
has prescribed, and study to promote her peace._ All this is good and
fit to be done. But it properly belongs to the following question.
_What led you into such loose notions of church-communion, I imagine,
might be, your being conscious to yourself, that according to the
strict, just account of the church of_ England, _you could not with
any grace maintain your pretensions to belong still to her_.――――Sir,
I have never told you yet, what my notions of the church-communion are.
They may be wrong, or they may be right, for all you know. Therefore,
when you are first supposing that I have told you my notions, and then
assigning the reasons of them, what can be said, but that you imagine
the whole matter?
3. How far I have _acted agreeably to the rules and orders_ of our
church, is a farther question. You think I have acted contrary thereto,
first, By using _extemporary prayer_ in public. _The church_, you
say, _has strongly declared her mind on this point, by appointing
her excellent liturgy, which you have solemnly promised to use――――and
no other_.――――I know not when or where.――――_And whoever――――does not
worship God in the manner she prescribes――――must be supposed to slight
and contemn her offices and rules: and therefore can be no more worthy
to be called her minister._ (page 7.)
I do not _slight or contemn the offices_ of the church. I esteem them
very highly. And yet I do not, at all times, worship God, even in
public, in the very terms of those offices. Nor yet do I knowingly
_slight or contemn her rules_. For it is not clear to my apprehension,
that she has any rule which forbids using extemporary prayer, suppose
between the morning and evening service. And if I am _not worthy to be
called her minister_ (which I dare by no means affirm myself to be) yet
_her minister I am_, and must always be, unless I should be judicially
deposed from my ministry.
Your second argument is this. “If you suppose the scripture enjoins
you to use extemporary prayer, then you must suppose our liturgy to
be inconsistent with scripture, and consequently unlawful to be used.”
That does not follow: unless I supposed the scripture to enjoin, to use
extemporary prayer, _and no other_. Then it would follow, that a form
of prayer was inconsistent with scripture. But this I never did suppose.
Your third argument is to this effect; “You act contrary to the rule
of the church. Allow she in the wrong: yet while you break her rule,
how do you act as her minister?” It ought to be expressed, _how are you
her minister?_ For the conclusion to be proved is, That I am not her
minister.
I answer, 1. I am not convinced, as I observed before, that I do hereby
_break her rule_. 2. If I did, yet should I not _cease_ to be her
minister, unless I were formally _deprived_. 3. I now _actually do_
continue in her communion, and hope that I always shall.
4. You object farther, “That I disobey the governors of the church.”
I answer, I both do, and will obey them in all things, where I do
not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary.
――――_Here_, you say, _you confess that in some things you do not,
and cannot obey your governors_ (page 8.)――――Did I _confess this_?
Then I spoke rashly and foolishly: for I granted more than I can make
good.――――I do certainly apprehend, that the law of God requires me,
both to preach and (sometimes) to pray _extempore_. Yet I do not know
that I disobey the governors of the church herein. For I do not know,
that they have forbidden me to do either.
But your _♦behaviour and method of teaching is irregular.――――Have you
any warrant from scripture for preaching_ up and down thus?――――I think
I have: I think God hath called me to this work _by the laying on of
the hands of the presbytery_, which directs me how to obey that general
command, _While we have time, let us do good unto all men_.
♦ “hehaviour” replaced with “behaviour”
_But we ought to do this agreeably to our respective situations, and
not break in upon each other’s provinces.――――Every private man may
take upon himself the office of a magistrate――――and quote this text as
justly as you have done_, (page 9.) No. The private man is not called
to the office of a _magistrate_; but I am to the office of a _preacher_.
――――_You was indeed authorized to preach the gospel: but it was in
the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed.――――Whereas
you have many years preached in places whereunto you was not lawfully
appointed; nay, which were intrusted to others, who neither wanted nor
desired your assistance._
Many of them wanted it enough, whether they desired it or no. But I
shall not now debate that point. I rather follow you to the ♦Part of
the _Farther Appeal_, where this objection is considered.
♦ “first” replaced with “Part” per Errata
5. “Our church (it was said) has provided against this preaching up
and down, in the ordination of a priest, by _expresly limiting_ the
exercise of the powers then conferred upon him, to the _congregation_
where he shall be lawfully ♦appointed thereunto.”
♦ “appoined” replaced with “appointed”
I answered, 1. “Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just
as you propose it, it proves, that no priest has authority either
to preach or administer the sacrament in any other than his own
congregation.” _Farther Appeal_, page 84.
You reply, _Is there no difference between a thing’s being done
occasionally――――and its being done for years together_?――――Yes a great
one. And more inconveniencies may arise from the latter than from the
former. But this is all wide: it does not touch the point. Still if
our church does _expresly limit_ the exercise of the sacerdotal powers,
to _that congregation_ whereunto each priest shall be appointed; this
precludes him from exercising those powers _at all_, in any other than
_that congregation_.
I answered, 2. “Had the powers conferred been so _limited_ when I was
ordained priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For
I was not _appointed to any congregation_ at all: but was ordained as
a member of that ‘college of divines,’ (so our statutes express it)
‘founded to overturn all heresies, and defend the catholic faith.’”
You reply, “I presume it was expected you should either continue at
your college, or enter upon some regular cure.”――――Perhaps so; but I
must still insist, that if my sacerdotal powers had been then _expresly
limited_ to _that congregation_ whereunto I should be _appointed_, my
ordination would have _signified nothing_. I mean, I could never, in
virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all: seeing
I never was appointed to any single congregation: at least, not till I
went to _Georgia_.
I answered, 3. “For many years after I was ordained priest, this
limitation was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way
of objection to my preaching up and down, in _Oxford_ or _London_,
or the parts adjacent: in _Glocestershire_ or _Worcestershire_: in
_Lancashire_, _Yorkshire_, or _Lincolnshire_. Nor did the strictest
disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever
I came.”
You reply, _There is great difference between preaching occasionally
――――with the leave of the incumbent, and doing it constantly without
their leave_. I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter,
which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this
head. They do not in the least affect this consequence, “If every
priest, when ordained, is _expresly limited_, touching the exercise
of the power then received, to _that congregation_ to which he shall
be appointed; then is he precluded by this _express limitation_,
from preaching, with or without the incumbent’s leave, in _any other
congregation_ whatever.”
I answered, 4. “Is it not, in fact, universally allowed, that every
priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, to preach
――――in any congregation, where the curate desires his assistance?”
You reply to this by what you judge a ♦parallel case. But it does not
touch the _restriction_ in question. Either this does, or does not
_expresly limit_ the exercise of the powers conferred upon a priest in
his ordination, to _that congregation_ whereunto he shall be appointed.
If it does not, I am not condemned by this; however faulty I may be on
a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every priest condemned
who ever preaches out of the _congregation to which he is appointed_.
♦ “parellel” replaced with “parallel”
Your parallel case is this――――_Because a man does not offend against
the law of the land, when I prevail upon him to teach my children_.
――――Therefore _he is impowered to seize_ (read, he does not offend
against the law of the land in seizing) _an apartment in my house, and
against my will and approbation to continue therein, and to direct and
dictate to my family_! page 11.
An exact parallel indeed!――――When therefore I came to live in St.
_Luke_’s parish, was it just the same thing as if I had _seized an
apartment in Dr._ Buckley’s _house_? And was the _continuing therein
against his will and approbation_ (supposing it were so) precisely the
same, as if I had continued _in his house_, whether he would or no? Is
the one exactly the same _offence against the law of the land_ as the
other? Once more. Is the warning _sinners_ in _Moorfields_, to flee
from the wrath to come, the very same with directing the Dr.’s _family,
under his own roof_?――――I should not have answered this, but that I was
afraid you would conclude, it was unanswerable.
I answered the former objector, 5. “Before those words which you
suppose to imply such a restraint――――were those spoken without
any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an
indelible character, receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work
of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee, by the
imposition of our hands.”
You reply, _The question is not, whether you are in orders, or not_?
page 12.――――I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was.――――_But
whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the
church of_ England.――――Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly
to be interpreted, of preaching only in a single congregation. But I
have given my reasons, why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And
those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated.
I would only add, If I am in orders, if I am a minister still, and
yet not a minister of the church of _England_, of what church am
I a minister? Whoever is a minister at all, is a minister of some
particular church. Neither can he cease to be a minister of that church,
till he is cast out of it by a judicial sentence. Till therefore I
am so cast out (which I trust will never be) I must stile myself, a
minister of the church of _England_.
6. Your next objection is, _You not only erect bands, which, after the_
Moravians, _you call the united society_, but also _give out tickets to
those that continue therein_.――――These bands, you think, _have had very
bad consequences――――as was to be expected――――when weak people――――are
made leaders――――of their brethren, and are set upon expounding
scripture_.――――Ibid.
You are in some mistakes here. For, 1. _The bands_ are not called _the
united society_. 2. The _united society_ was originally so called,
not after the _Moravians_, but because it consisted of several smaller
societies _united together_. 3. Neither the bands, nor the leaders
of them, as such, are _set upon expounding scripture_. 4. The good
consequences of their meeting together _in bands_, I know: but the
_very bad consequences_ I know not.
When any members of these, or of the _united society_, are proved to
live in known sin, we then mark and avoid them; we separate ourselves
from every one that walks disorderly. Sometimes, if the case be judged
infectious (though rarely) this is openly declared. And this you
stile _excommunication_, and say, _Does not every one see a separate
ecclesiastical society or communion?_ page 13.――――No. This society
does not _separate_ from the _communion_ of the rest of the church
of _England_. They _continue stedfastly_ with them, both _in the
apostolical doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers_
(which neither Mr. _St._ nor Mr. _Si._ does: nor the gentleman who
writes to you in favour of the _Moravians_: who also writes pressingly
to me, to _separate_ myself from the church) a society _over which
you had appointed yourself a governor_.――――No; so far as I governed
them, it was at their own intreaty.――――_And took upon you all the
spiritual authority, which the very highest church governor could
claim._――――What! at _Kingswood_? In _February 1740‒1_? Not so. I took
upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any steward
of a society exerts by the consent of the other members. I did neither
more nor less than declare, that they who had broken our rules, were no
longer of our society.
_Can you pretend that you received this authority from our church?_
――――Not by ordination; for I did not exert it as a _priest_: but as
one whom that society had voluntarily chosen to be at the head of
them.――――_Or that you exercised it in subjection, or subordination
to her lawful governors?_――――I think so; I am sure I did not exercise
it in any designed opposition to them.――――_Did you ever think proper
to consult or advise with them, about fixing the terms of your
communion?_――――If you mean, about fixing the rules of admitting or
excluding from our society: I never did think it either needful or
proper. Nor do I, at this day.
_How then will you vindicate all these powers?――――All these_ are,
“Declaring those are no longer of our society.” _Here is a manifest
congregation. Either it belonged to the church of_ England, _or
not.――――If it did not――――you set up a separate communion against her.
And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from
her?_――――I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false.
Therefore the consequent falls of course.――――_If it did belong to the
church, shew where the church gave you such authority of controuling
and regulating it?_――――Authority of putting disorderly members out of
that society? The society itself gave me that authority. _What private
clergyman can plead her commission, to be thus a judge and ordinary,
even in his own parish?_――――Any clergyman or layman, without pleading
her commission, may be thus a judge and ordinary. _Are not these powers
inherent in her governors, and committed to the higher order of her
clergy?_――――No; not the power of excluding members from a private
society,――――unless on supposition of some such rule as ours is, viz.
“That if any man separate from the church, he is no longer a member of
our society.”
7. But you have more proof yet. _The grand jury in_ Georgia _found,
that you had called yourself ordinary of_ Savannah. _Nor was this
fact contradicted even by those of the jury, who you say wrote in your
favour. So that it appears, you have long had an inclination, to be
independent and uncontrouled._――――This argument ought to be good; for
it is far fetched. The plain case was this. That grand jury did assert,
“That in Mr. _Causton_’s hearing, I had called myself ordinary of
_Savannah_.” The minority of the jury, in their letter to the trustees,
refuted the other allegations particularly: but thought this so idle an
one, that they did not deign to give it any farther reply, than
“As to the eighth bill we are in doubt, as not well knowing the meaning
of the word _ordinary_.” See 1 Journal, pages 47, 49.
You add, _I appeal to any reasonable man, whether you have not acted
as an_ ordinary; _nay, a_ bishop _in_ Kingswood.――――If you mean, in
“declaring those disorderly members were no longer of that society.”
I admit your appeal, whether I therein acted as a _bishop_, or as
any _steward_ of a society may. _Nay, you have gone far beyond the
generality of the dissenters themselves; who do not commit the power
of excommunication (and ♦appointing to preach_――――that is another
question) _to the hands of any private minister_.――――The _powers of
excommunication._――――True; but this was not _excommunication_, but a
quite different thing.
♦ “appointed” replaced with “appointing” per Errata
How far, in what circumstances, and in what sense, I have _appointed
men to preach_, I have explained at large in the third part of the
_Farther Appeal_. But I wait for farther light; and am ready to
consider, as I am able, whatever shall be replied to what is there
advanced.
8. Your general conclusion is, _Whatever your pretences or professions
may be, you can be looked upon by serious and impartial persons, (not
as a_ member, _much less a_ minister _of the church of_ England,) _but
as no other than an enemy to her constitution, worship and doctrine,
raising divisions and disturbances in her communion_, (page 76.)
――――_And yet you say――――“I cannot have greater regard to her
rules”――――“I dare not renounce communion with her.”_ (page 15.)