own way.” Most surely they do. For as there is but _one heaven_,
so there is but _one way_ to it; even the way of _faith_ in Christ,
(for we speak not of _opinions_, or outward _modes_ of _worship_) the
way of _love_ to God and man, _the highway of holiness_. And is it
uncharitable, to think or say, That none can be saved, but those who
walk in this way? Was he then uncharitable, who declared, _He that
believeth not shall be damned_? Or he that said, _Follow holiness,
without which no man shall see the Lord_? And again; Though _I bestow
all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned_,
yet, _if I have not_ (ἀγάπην) _charity, love_, all this profiteth me
nothing.”
“But they damn all, you say, beside themselves.” _Damn_ all! What
kind of word is this? They damn no man. None is able to damn any man,
but the Lord and judge of all. What you probably mean by that strange
expression is, they declare that God condemns all, beside those who
believe in Jesus Christ, and love him and keep his commandments. And
so must _you_ also, or you sin against God, and your neighbour, and
your own soul. But is there any _uncharitableness_ in this? In warning
sinners to flee from the wrath to come? On the contrary, not to warn a
poor, blind, stupid wretch, that he is hanging over the mouth of hell,
would be so inexcusable a want of charity, as would bring his blood
upon our own head.
4. But there is no room for dispute, touching these _doctrines_ in
general, seeing our Lord gives you so plain a rule, by which you may
easily and infallibly know, whether they be of God. _The tree is known
by its fruit, either therefore make the tree good, and its fruit good;
or else, make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt._ (Matthew xii.
33.) Now what fruit does the tree before us bring forth? Look and see;
believe your own eyes and ears. Sinners leave their sins. The servants
of the devil become the servants of God. Is this good or evil fruit?
That _vice_ loses ground, and _virtue_, practical _religion_, gains? O
dispute no more. Know the tree by its fruit. Bow and own the finger of
God.
But many, who own _these doctrines_ to be of God, yet cannot be
reconciled to the _instruments_ he hath made use of. A very common
exception taken against these is (and was from the beginning) “That
they are so _young_.” Therefore (abundance of men have readily inferred)
“This work cannot be of God.”
Perhaps they are not so young as you conceive. Mr. _Whitefield_ is
now upwards of thirty; my brother is thirty-seven years of age. I have
lived above forty-two years. And a gentleman in _Cornwall_, for whom
I often preach, has the merit of having lived threescore and seventeen
years.
But, supposing the antecedent true, what a consequence is this? What
shadow of scripture have you to support it? Doth not God _send by whom
he_ will _send_? And who shall say to him, _What dost thou_? “These are
too young; send elder men.” What shadow of reason? Is it not possible,
that a person of thirty or forty may have as true a judgment in the
things of God, and as great a blessing attending his preaching, as one
of fifty or fourscore?
I wish you would explain yourself a little on this head:
_Scire velim_, verbo, _pretium quotus arroget annus?_
How old do you require a man to be, before God should have leave to
speak by his mouth?――――O my brethren, who could have believed any
serious man would once have named such an argument as this? Seeing both
scripture and reason teach, that God herein _giveth account to none
of his ways_. But he worketh by whomsoever he _will_ work; he sheweth
mercy by whom he _will_ shew mercy.
* 6. “But there are only _a few_ young heads,” I cannot but observe
here, what great pains have been taken, what diligence shewn, to make
and to keep them _few_. What arts have not been used, to keep back
those of the clergy in particular, who have been clearly convinced
from time to time, that they ought to join hearts and hands in the
work? On this occasion, it has been accounted meritorious, to _say all
manner of evil of us falsely_: to _promise_ them whatever their hearts
desired, if they would refrain from these men: and, on the other hand,
to _threaten_ them with heavy things, if ever they went among them
more. So that how fully soever they were convinced, they could not
act according to their conviction, unless they could give up at once
all thought of _preferment_, either in church or state; nay, all hope
of even a _fellowship_, or poor _scholarship_, in either university.
Many also have been threatened, that if they went on in this way, what
little they had should be taken from them. And many have, on this very
account, been disowned by their dearest friends and nearest relations.
So that there was no possibility the number of these labourers should
ever be increased at all, unless by those who could break through
all these ties, who desired nothing in the present world, who counted
neither their fortunes, nor friends, nor lives, dear unto themselves,
so they might only _keep a conscience void_ of offence toward God and
toward men.
7. But what do you infer from their _fewness_? That because they are
_few_, therefore God cannot _work by them_? Upon what scripture do
you ground this? I thought it was _the same to him, to save by many
or few_. Upon what reason? Why cannot God save ten thousand souls by
one man, as well as by ten thousand? How little, how inconsiderable
a circumstance is number before God? Nay, is there not reason to
believe, that whensoever God is pleased to work a great deliverance,
spiritual or temporal, he may first say, as of old, _The people are
too many for me to give the_ Midianites _into their hands_? May he not
purposely chuse _few_ as well as inconsiderable instruments, for the
greater manifestation of his own glory? Very _few_, I grant, are the
instruments now employed: yet a great work is wrought already. And the
fewer they are by whom this large harvest hath hitherto been gathered
in, the more evident must it appear to unprejudiced minds, that the
work is not of man, but of God.
8. “But they are not only few, but _unlearned_ also.” This is a
grievous offence; and is by many esteemed a sufficient _excuse_, for
not acknowledging the work to be of God.
The ground of this offence is partly true. Some of those who now preach
are _unlearned_. They neither understand the antient languages, nor
any of the branches of philosophy. And yet this objection might have
been spared, by many of those who have frequently made it: because
_they_ are _unlearned_ too (though accounted otherwise.) They have not
themselves the very thing they require in others.
* Men in general are under a great mistake with regard to what is
called “The Learned World.” They do not know, they cannot easily
imagine, how little _learning_ there is among them. I do not speak of
_abstruse learning_; but of what all divines, at least of any note, are
supposed to have viz. The knowledge of the _tongues_, at least _Latin_,
_Greek_ and _Hebrew_, and of the common _arts_ and _sciences_.
* How few men of learning, so called, understand _Hebrew_? Even so
far as to read a plain chapter in _Genesis_? Nay, how few understand
_Greek_? Make an easy experiment. Desire that grave man, who is
urging this objection, only to tell you the _English_ of the first
paragraph that occurs in one of _Plato’s dialogues_? I am afraid we
may go farther still. How few understand _Latin_? Give one of them an
_epistle_ of _Tully_, and see how readily he will explain it, without
his _dictionary_. If he can hobble through that, it is odds but a
_georgick_ in _Virgil_, or a _satire_ of _Persius_ sets him fast.
* And with regard to the _arts_ and _sciences_: How few understand
so much as the general principles of _Logick_? Can one in ten of the
clergy (O grief of heart!) or of the _masters_ of _arts_ in either
university, when an argument is brought, tell you even the _mood_ and
_figure_ wherein it is proposed? Or _compleat_ an _Enthymeme_? Perhaps,
you do not so much as understand the term: supply the _premiss_ which
is wanting, in order to make it a full _categorical syllogism_. Can
one in ten of them demonstrate a _problem_ or _theorem_ in _Euclid’s
Elements_? Or define the common terms used in _metaphysicks_? Or
intelligibly explain the first principles of it? Why then will they
_pretend_ to that learning, which they are conscious to themselves they
have not? Nay, and censure others who have it not, and do not _pretend_
to it? Where are sincerity and candour fled?
* It will easily be observed, that I do not depreciate _learning_ of
any kind. The knowledge of the _languages_ is a valuable talent; so is
the knowledge of the _arts_ and _sciences_. Both the one and the other
may be employed to the glory of God, and the good of men. But yet I ask,
Where hath God declared in his word, that he _cannot_, or _will not_
make use of men that have it not? Has _Moses_, or any of the prophets
affirmed this? Or our Lord? Or any of his apostles? You are sensible
all these are against you. You know the apostles themselves, all except
St. _Paul_, were ανδρες αγραμματοι και ιδιωται· common, unphilosophical,
unlettered men.
9. “What! Then you make yourselves, _like the apostles_.” Because this
silly objection has so often been urged, I will for once spend a few
words upon it, though it does not deserve that honour. Why, must not
every man, whether clergyman, or layman, be in some respects _like
the apostles_, or go to hell? Can any man be saved, if he be not holy,
_like the apostles_? A follower of them, as they were of Christ? And
ought not every preacher of the gospel, to be in a _peculiar_ manner
_like the apostles_, both in holy tempers, in exemplariness of life,
and in his indefatigable labours for the good of souls? Woe unto
every ambassador of Christ, who is not _like the apostles_ in this!
In holiness; in making full proof of his ministry; in spending and
being spent for Christ! We _cannot_ and therefore we _need_ not be like
them, in _working outward miracles_. But we may and ought, in _working
together with God_ for the salvation of men. And the same God who was
always ready to help _their_ infirmities, is ready to help _ours_ also.
He who made them _workmen that needed not to be ashamed_, will teach us
also _rightly to divide the word of truth_. In this respect likewise,
in respect of his _having help from God_, for the work whereunto he is
called, every preacher of the gospel is _like the apostles_. Otherwise
he is of all men most miserable.
* 10. And I am bold to affirm, that these unlettered men, _have
help from God_ for that great work, the saving souls from death;
seeing he hath enabled, and doth enable them still, to _turn many to
righteousness_. Thus hath he _destroyed the wisdom of the wise, and
brought to nought the understanding of the prudent_. When they imagined
they had effectually shut the door, and locked up every passage,
whereby any help could come to two or three preachers, weak in body as
well as soul; who they might reasonably believe would humanly speaking,
wear themselves out in a short time: when they had gained their point
by securing (as they supposed) all the men of learning in the nation;
_he that sitteth in heaven laughed them to scorn_, and came upon them
by a way they thought not of. _Out of the stones he raised up_ those
who should beget children to _Abraham_. We had no more foresight of
this than you. Nay, we had the deepest prejudices against it: until we
could not but own, that God gave _wisdom from above_ to these unlearned
and ignorant men; so that the work of the Lord prospered in their hand,
and sinners were daily converted to God.
Indeed in the one thing which they profess to know, they are not
_ignorant_ men. I trust there is not one of them who is not able to
go thro’ such an examination, in substantial, practical, experimental
divinity, as few of our candidates for holy orders, even in the
university (I speak it with sorrow and shame, and in tender love) are
able to do. But oh! what manner of _examination_, do most of _those
candidates_ go through? And what proof are the _testimonials_ commonly
brought (as solemn as the _form_ is wherein they run) either of their
_piety_ or _knowledge_, to whom are intrusted those sheep, which God
hath purchased with his own blood!
11. “But they are _laymen_. You seem to be sensible yourself, of the
strength of this objection. For as many as you have answered, I observe
you have never once so much as touched on this.”
I have not. Yet it was not distrust of my cause, but tenderness to you
which occasioned my silence. I had something to advance on this head
also: but I was afraid you could not bear it. I was conscious to myself,
that some years since, to touch this point, was to touch the apple of
my eye. And this makes me almost unwilling to speak now; lest I should
_shock_ the prejudices I cannot _remove_.
* Suffer me, however, just to intimate to you some things, which I
would leave to your farther consideration. The _scribes_ of old, who
were the ordinary _preachers_ among the _Jews_, were not _priests_;
they were not better than _laymen_. Yea, many of them were incapable
of the priesthood, being of the tribe of _Simeon_, not of _Levi_.
Hence probably it was, that the _Jews_ themselves never urged it as an
objection to our Lord’s preaching (even those who did not acknowledge
or believe, that he was sent of God in an _extraordinary_ character)
that he was no _priest_ after the order of ♦_Aaron_. Nor indeed could
be; seeing he was of the tribe of _Judah_.
♦ “Aron” replaced with “Aaron”
Nor does it appear, that any objected this to the apostles. So far
from it, that at _Antioch_ in _Pisidia_, we find _the rulers of the
synagogue sending unto Paul and_ Barnabas, strangers just come into
the city, _saying, men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation
for the people, say on_, Acts xiii. 15.
If we consider these things, we shall be the less surprized at what
occurs in the 8th chapter of the _Acts_: _At that time there was a
great persecution against the church, and they ♦were all scattered
abroad_: (i. e. all the _church_, all the believers in Jesus)
_throughout the regions of_ Judea _and_ Samaria. (verse 1.) _therefore
they that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the word_,
(verse 4.) Now, what shadow of reason have we to say, or think, that
all these were _ordained_ before they _preached_?
♦ “where” replaced with “were”
12. * If we come to later times; was Mr. _Calvin_ ordained? Was he
either priest or deacon? And were not most of those whom it pleased God
to employ in promoting the _reformation_ abroad, _laymen_ also? Could
that great work have been promoted at all in many places, if _laymen_
had not preached? And yet how seldom do the very _Papists_ urge this,
as an objection against the _reformation_? Nay, as rigorous as they are
in things of this kind, they themselves appoint, even in some of their
strictest _orders_, that “if any _lay-brother_ believes himself called
of God, to _preach_ as a _missionary_, the superior of the _order_,
being informed thereof, shall immediately send him away.”
* In all _protestant_ churches it is still more evident, that
_ordination_ is not held a necessary _prerequisite_ of preaching:
for in _Sweden_, in _Germany_, in _Holland_, and, I believe, in
every _reformed_ church in _Europe_, it is not only _permitted_ but
_required_, that before any one is _ordained_, (before he is admitted
even into _deacon_’s orders, wherever the distinction between priests
and deacons is retained) he should publickly preach a year or more _ad
probandum facultatem_. And for this practice, they believe they have
the authority of an express command of God: _Let these first be_ proved:
_then let them use the office of a_ deacon, _being found blameless_, 1
Timothy iii. 10.
23. “In _England_, however, there is nothing of this kind; no _layman_
permitted to speak in public.” No! Can you be ignorant, that in an
hundred _churches_ they do it continually? In how many (particularly
in the _West_ of _England_) does the _parish-clerk_ read one of the
lessons? (In some he reads the whole service of the church, perhaps,
every Lord’s day) and do not other _laymen_ constantly do the same
thing, yea, in our very _cathedrals_? Which being under the more
immediate inspection of the _bishops_, should be patterns to all other
churches.
Perhaps it will be said, “But this is not _preaching_.” Yes, but it
is, essentially such. For what is it to _preach_, but _præedicare
verbum Dei_? To publish the word of God? And this _laymen_ do all over
_England_; particularly under the eye of every bishop in the nation.
Nay, is it not done in the universities themselves? Who _ordained_ that
singing-man at _Christchurch_? Who is likewise utterly unqualified for
the work, murdering every lesson he reads? Not even endeavouring to
read it as the word of God but rather as an old song? _Such_ a _layman_
as this, meddling at all with the word of God, I grant is a scandal to
the _English_ nation.
* To go a step farther.――――Do not the fundamental constitutions of the
_university_ of _Oxford_, the _statutes_, even as revised by archbishop
_Laud_, require every _batchelor of arts_, nine in ten of whom are
_laymen_, to read three _public lectures_ in moral philosophy, on
whatever subject he chuses? My subject, I well remember, was, The LOVE
of God. Now, what was this but _preaching_?
* Nay, may not a man be a _doctor of divinity_ even in _Oxford_, tho’
he never was _ordained_ at all? The instance of Dr. _Atwell_, (late)
rector of _Exeter college_, is fresh in every one’s memory.
These are a few of the considerations that may readily occur to any
thinking man on this head. But I do not rest the cause on these. I
believe it may be defended a shorter way.
14. * It pleased God by two or three ministers of the church of
_England_, to call many sinners to repentance: who, in several parts,
were undeniably turned from a course of sin, to a course holiness.
The ministers of the places where this was done, ought to have received
those ministers with open arms: and to have taken them who had just
begun to serve God, into their peculiar care; watching over them in
tender love, lest they should fall back into the snare of the devil.
Instead of this, the greater part spoke of those ministers, as if
the devil, not God had sent them. Some repelled them from the Lord’s
table: others stirred up the people against them, representing them
even in their public discourses, as _fellows not fit to live; papists,
hereticks, traitors; conspirators_ against their king and _country_.
And how did they watch over the sinners lately reformed? Even as a
leopard watcheth over his prey. They drove some of them also from the
Lord’s table; to which till _now_ they had no desire to approach. They
preached all manner of evil concerning them, openly cursing them in the
name of the Lord. They turned many out of their work; persuaded others
to do so too, and harrassed them all manner of ways.
The event was, that some were wearied out, and so turned back to
their vomit again. And then these good pastors gloried over them, and
endeavoured to shake others by their example.
15. * When the ministers by whom God had helped them before, came again
to those places, great part of their work was to begin again; if it
could be begun again; but the relapsers were often so hardened in sin,
that no impression could be made upon them.
What could they do in a case of so extreme necessity? Where so many
souls lay at stake?
No clergyman would assist at all. The expedient that remained was, to
find some one among themselves, who was upright of heart, and of sound
judgment in the things of God: and to desire him to meet the rest as
often as he could, in order to confirm them, as he was able, in the
ways of God, either by reading to them, or by prayer, or by exhortation.
God immediately gave a blessing hereto. In several places, by means of
these plain men, not only those who had already begun to run well, were
hindered from drawing back to perdition; but other sinners also, from
time to time were converted from the error of their ways.
This plain account of the whole proceeding, I take to be the best
defence of it. I know no scripture which forbids making use of such
help, in a case of such necessity. And I praise God who has given even
_this_ help to those poor sheep, when _their own shepherds pitied them
not_.
“But does not the scripture say, _no man taketh_ this honour _to
himself, but he that is called of God, as was_ Aaron?” Nor do these.
The _honour_ here mentioned is the _priesthood_. But they no more take
upon them to be priests then to be kings. They take not upon them to
administer the sacraments, an honour peculiar to the priests of God.
Only according to their power, they exhort their brethren, to continue
in the grace of God.
“But for these _laymen_ to exhort at all, is a violation of all
_order_.”
What is this _order_ of which you speak? Will it serve instead of the
knowledge and love of God? Will this _order_ rescue those from the
snare of the devil, who are now taken captive at his will? Will it keep
them who are escaped a little way, from turning back into _Egypt_? If
not, how should I answer it to God, if rather than violate I know not
what _order_, I should _sacrifice_ thousands of souls thereto? I dare
not do it. It is at the peril of my own soul.
Indeed if by _order_ were meant, _true Christian discipline_, whereby
all the living members of Christ are knit together in one, and all that
are putrid and dead, immediately cut off from the body: this _order_
I reverence; for it is of God. But where is it to be found? In what
diocese? In what town or parish, within _England_ or _Wales_? Are you
rector of a parish? Then let us go no farther. Does this _order_ obtain
there? Nothing less. Your parishioners are a rope of sand. As few (if
any) of them are alive to God; so they have no connection with each
other, unless such as might be among _Turks_ or _Heathens_. Neither
have _you_ any power to cut off from that body, were it alive, the dead
and putrid members. Perhaps you have no desire: but all are jumbled
together without any care or concern of yours.
It is plain then, what _order_ is to be found is not among _you_,
who so loudly contend for it, but among that very people whom you
continually blame, for their _violation_ and _contempt_ of it. The
little flock you condemn is united together in one body, by one spirit:
so that _if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it, if one
be honoured, all rejoice with it_. Nor does any dead member long remain;
but as soon as the hope of recovering it is past, it is cut off.
Now suppose we were willing to relinquish our charge, and to give up
this flock into _your_ hands; would _you_ observe the same _order_, as
we do now, with them and the other souls under your care? You _dare_
not: because you have respect of persons. You fear the faces of men.
You _cannot_: because you have not _overcome the world_. You are not
above the desire of earthly things. And it is impossible you should
ever have any _true order_, or exercise any _Christian discipline_,
till you are wholly _crucified to the ♦world_, till you desire nothing
more but God.
♦ “wold” replaced with “world”
Consider this matter, I intreat you, a little farther. Here are thirty
thousand persons (perhaps somewhat more) of whom I take care, watching
over their souls as he that must give ♦account. In order hereto it lies
upon me (so I judge) at the peril of my own salvation, to know not only
their names, but their outward and inward states, their difficulties
and dangers. Otherwise how can I know either how to guide them aright,
or to commend them to God in prayer? Now if I am willing to make
these over to _you_, will _you_ watch over them in the same manner?
Will _you_ take the same care (or as much more as you please) of each
soul as I have hitherto done? Not such _curam animarum_ as you have
taken these ten years in your own parish. Poor empty name! Has not
your _parish_ been in fact, as much a _sine cure_ to _you_ as your
_prebend_? Oh what account have _you_ to give to the great Shepherd and
Bishop of souls!
♦ “account, in” replaced with “account. In” per Errata