the _instruments_ employed therein: that is, “That they are _wicked_
men.” And a thousand stories have been handed about to prove it.
But you may observe, their _wickedness_ was not heard of, till after
they _went about doing good_. Their reputation for _honesty_ was till
then unblemished but it was impossible it should continue so, when they
were publickly employed in _testifying of the world, that its deeds
were evil_. It could not be but the scriptures should be fulfilled.
_The servant is not above his master. If they have called the master
of the house beelzebub, how much more them of his houshold?_
* Yet I cannot but remind considerate men, in how remarkable a manner
the wisdom of God has for many years guarded against this pretence,
with respect to my brother and me in particular. Scarce any two men
in _Great-Britain_, of our rank, have been so held out, as it were,
to all the world; especially of those who from their childhood had
always loved and studiously sought retirement. And I had procured what
I sought, I was quite safe, as I supposed, in a little country town,
when I was required to return to _Oxford_, without delay, to take the
charge of some young gentlemen, by Dr. _Morley_, the only man then
in _England_ to whom I could deny nothing. From that time both my
brother and I (utterly against our will) came to be more and more
observed and known, till we were more spoken of, than, perhaps, two so
inconsiderable persons ever were before in the nation. To make us more
publick still, as _honest_ madmen at least, by a strange concurrence of
providences overturning all our preceding resolutions, we were hurried
away to _America_. However, at our return from thence, we were resolved
to retire out of the world at once; being sated with noise, hurry
and fatigue, and seeking nothing but to be at rest. Indeed for a long
season, the greatest pleasure I had desired, on this side eternity was
Tacitum Sylvas inter reptare salubres,
Quærentem quicquid dignum sapiente bonoque.
And we had attained our desire. We wanted nothing. We looked for
nothing more in this world, when we were dragged out again, by earnest
importunity, to preach at one place and another, and another, and so
carried on, we knew not how, without any design but the general one, of
saving souls, into a situation, which had it been named to us at first,
would have appeared far worse than death.
* 19. What a surprising _apparatus_ of Providence was here! And what
stronger demonstrations could have been given, of men’s acting from
_a zeal_ for God, whether it were _according to knowledge_ or no? What
persons could, in the nature of things, have been (antecedently) less
liable to exception, with regard to their _moral character_, at least,
than those the all-wise God hath now employed? Indeed I cannot devise
what manner of men could have been more unexceptionable on all accounts.
Had God endued us with greater natural or acquired abilities, that very
thing might have been turned into an objection. Had ♦we been remarkably
_defective_, it would have been matter of objection, on the other
hand. Had we been _dissenters_ of any kind, or even _low-church men_,
(so called) it would have been a great stumbling-block in the way
of those who are _zealous for the church_. And yet had we continued
in the impetuosity of our _high-church zeal_, neither should we have
been willing to converse with _dissenters_, nor they to receive any
good at our hands. Some objections were kept out of the way, by our
known _contempt_ of money and preferment: and others, by that rigorous
strictness of life, which we exacted, not of others, but ourselves only.
Insomuch, that twelve or fourteen years ago, the censure of one who had
narrowly observed us, (_me_, in particular) went no farther than this;
“Does _John_ beyond his strength persist to go,
To his frail carcase literally foe?
Careless of health, as if in haste to die,
And lavish time t’ insure eternity!”
So that upon the whole, I see not what God could have done more in this
respect which he hath not done. Or what _instruments_ he could have
employed in such a work, who would have been less liable to exception.
♦ “he” replaced with “we” per Errata
20. Neither can I conceive how it was possible to do that work, the
doing of which, we are still under the strongest conviction, is bound
upon us at the peril of our own souls, in a less exceptionable manner.
We have, by the grace of God, behaved not only with meekness, but
with all tenderness towards all men; with all the tenderness which we
conceived it was possible to use, without betraying their souls. And
from the very first, it has been our special care, to deal tenderly
with our brethren the clergy. We have not willingly provoked them at
any time; neither any _single_ clergyman. We have not _sought_ occasion
to publish their faults; we have not _used_ a thousand occasions that
offered. When we were constrained to speak something, we spake _as
little_ as we believed we could, without offending God: and that little,
though in plain and strong words, yet as _mildly_ and _lovingly_ as we
were able. And in the same course we have steadily persevered (as well
as in earnestly advising others to tread in our steps) even though we
saw that with regard to them, by all this we profited nothing; though
we knew we were still continually represented as _implacable enemies to
the clergy_, as railers against them, as slanderers of them, as seeking
all opportunities to blacken and asperse them. When a clergyman himself
has vehemently accused me of doing this, I bless God he could not
provoke me to do it. I still _kept my mouth as it were with a bridle_,
and committed my cause to a higher hand.
21. The truth is, you impute that hatred to _us_, which is in _your own
breast_. (I speak not this of all the clergy; God forbid! But let it
fall on whom it concerns.) _You_, it is certain, have shewn the utmost
hatred to _us_, and in every possible way: unless you were actually
to beat us (of which also we are not without precedent) or to shoot
us through the head. And if you could prevail upon others to do this,
I suppose you would think you did God service. I do not speak without
ground. I have heard with my own ears such sermons, (in _Staffordshire_
particularly) that I should not have wondered if as soon as we came
out of the church, the people had stoned me with stones. And it was a
natural consequence of what that poor minister had lately heard, at the
bishop’s visitation: as it was one great cause of the miserable riots
and outrages which soon followed.
It is this, my brethren, it is _your own preaching_, and not _ours_,
which _sets the people against you_. The very same persons, who are
_diverted_ with those sermons, cannot but _despise_ you for them in
their hearts: even those who on _your_ authority believe most of the
assertions which you advance. What then must they think of you, who
know the greatest part of what you assert to be utterly false? They may
pity and pray for you; but they can _esteem_ you no other, than false
witnesses against God and your brethren.
22. “But what need is there (say even some of a milder spirit) of this
preaching in _fields_ and _streets_? Are there not _churches enough_
to preach in?” No, my friend, there are not; not for us to preach
in. You forget: we are not suffered to preach there; else we should
prefer them to any places whatever. “Well, there are ministers enough
without _you_.” Ministers _enough_, and churches _enough_; for what?
To reclaim all the sinners within the four seas? If there were, they
would all be reclaimed. But they are not reclaimed. Therefore it is
evident, that there are not _churches enough_. And one plain reason
why, notwithstanding all these churches, they are no nearer being
reclaimed is this; they never come into a church; perhaps not once in
a twelve-month, perhaps not for many years together. Will you say (as
I have known some _tender hearted Christians_) “Then it is _their own_
fault; let them die and be damned.” I grant it is _their own_ fault.
And so it was _my_ fault and _yours_, when we went astray, like sheep
that were lost. Yet the Shepherd of souls sought after us, and went
after us into the wilderness. And _oughtest not thou to have compassion
on thy fellow-servants, as he had pity on thee_? Ought not we also _to
seek_, as far as in us lies, _and to save that which is lost_?
* Behold the amazing love of God to the outcasts of men! His tender
condescention to their folly! They would regard nothing done _in the
usual way_. All this was lost upon them. The _ordinary_ preaching of
the word of God, they would not even deign to hear. So the devil made
sure of these careless ones. For who should pluck them out of his hand?
Then God was moved to jealousy, and went _out of the usual way_ to save
the souls which he had made. Then over and above what was ordinarily
spoken in his name, in all the houses of God in the land, he commanded
a voice to cry in the wilderness, _Prepare ye the way of the Lord.
The time is fulfilled. The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Repent ye and
believe the gospel._
* 23. Consider coolly, if it was not highly expedient, that something
of this kind should be? How expedient, were it only on the account
of those poor sinners against their own souls, who (to all human
appearance) were utterly inaccessible every other way? And what
numbers of these are still to be found, even in or near our most
populous cities? What multitudes of them were some years since, both
in _Kingswood_, and the fells about _Newcastle_? Who, week after week,
spent the Lord’s day, either in the ale-house, or in idle diversions,
and never troubled themselves about going to church, or to any publick
worship at all? Now, would you really have desired that these poor
wretches should have sinned on, till they dropt into hell? Surely you
would not. But by what other means was it possible they should have
been plucked out of the fire? Had the minister of the parish preached
like an angel, it had profited them nothing; for they heard him not.
But when one came and said, “Yonder is a man preaching on the top of
the mountain,” they ran in droves to hear what he would say. And God
spoke to their hearts. It is hard to conceive any thing else which
could have reached them. Had it not been for _field-preaching_, the
uncommonness of which was the very circumstance that recommended it,
they must have run on in the error of their way, and perished in their
blood.
* 24. But suppose _field-preaching_ to be in a case of this kind,
ever so _expedient_, or even _necessary_, yet who will contest with
us for _this province_?――――May we not enjoy this quiet and unmolested?
Unmolested, I mean by any competitors.――For who is there among you,
brethren, that is willing, (examine your own hearts) even to save souls
from death at this price? Would not _you_ let a thousand souls perish,
rather than you would be the instrument of rescuing them thus? I do not
speak now with regard to conscience, but to the inconveniencies that
must accompany it. Can _you_ sustain them, if you _would_? Can you bear
the summer sun to beat upon your naked head? Can you suffer the wintry
rain or wind, from whatever quarter it blows? Are you able to stand
in the open air, without any covering or defence, when God casteth
abroad his snow like wool, or scattereth his hoar-frost like ashes?
And yet these are some of the smallest inconveniencies which accompany
_field-preaching_. Far beyond all these, are the contradiction of
sinners, the scoffs both of the great vulgar, and the small; contempt
and reproach of every kind; often more than verbal affronts, stupid,
brutal violence, sometimes to the hazard of health, or limbs, or life.
Brethren, do you envy us _this honour_? What I pray, would _buy you_
to be a _field-preacher_? Or what, think you, could induce any man
of common sense, to continue therein one year, unless he had a full
conviction in himself, that it was the will of God concerning him.
* Upon this conviction it is (were we to submit to these things on any
other motive whatsoever, it would furnish you with a better proof of
our _distraction_, than any that has yet been found) that _we_ now do,
for the good of poor souls, what you cannot, will not, dare not do. And
we desire not that you should; but this one thing, we may reasonably
desire of you: do not increase the difficulties which are already
so great, that without the mighty power of God, we must sink under
them. Do not assist in trampling down a little handful of men, who for
the present stand in the gap, between ten thousand poor wretches and
destruction, till you find some others to take their places.
* 25. Highly needful it is, that some should do this, lest those poor
souls be lost without remedy. And it should rejoice the hearts of all
who desire the kingdom of God should come, that so many of them have
been snatched already from the mouth of the lion, by an _uncommon_
(though not unlawful) way. This circumstance therefore is no just
_excuse_, for not acknowledging the work of God. Especially, if we
consider, that whenever it has pleased God to work any great work upon
the earth, even from the earliest times, he hath stept more or less
out of the _common_ way: whether to excite the attention of a greater
number of people, than might otherwise have regarded it; or to separate
the proud and haughty of heart, from those of an humble, child-like
spirit; the former of whom he foresaw, trusting in their own wisdom,
would fall on that stone and be broken; while the latter, enquiring
with simplicity, would soon know of the work, that it was of God.
26. “Nay (say some) but God is a God of _wisdom_. And it is his work,
to give _understanding_. Whereas _this_ man is one of them, and he is
a _fool_. You see the _fruits_ of their _preaching_.” No, my friend,
you don’t. That is your mistake. A fool very possibly he may be. So it
appears by his talking, perhaps writing too. But this is none of the
_fruits_ of our _preaching_. He was a fool before ever he heard us. We
found and are likely to leave him so. Therefore his folly is not to be
imputed to us, even if it continue to the day of his death. As we were
not the cause, so we undertake not the cure of disorders of this kind.
No fair man therefore can _excuse_ himself thus, from acknowledging the
work of God.
Perhaps you will say, “He is not a natural fool neither. But he is so
ignorant! He knows not the first principles of religion.” It is very
possible. But have patience with him, and he will know them by and
by. Yea, if he be in earnest to save his soul, far sooner than you can
conceive. And in the mean time, neither is this an objection of any
weight. Many when they begin to hear us, may, without any fault of ours,
be utter strangers to the whole of religion. But this is no incurable
disease. Yet a little while and they may be wise unto salvation.
Is the ignorance you complain of among this people (you who object
to the _people_ more than to their _teachers_) of another kind? Don’t
they “know, how in meekness to reprove or instruct those that oppose
themselves?” I believe what you say: all of them do not: they have
not put on gentleness and long-suffering. I wish they had: pray for
them that they may; that they may be mild and patient toward all men.
But what if they are not? Sure you do not make this an argument that
God hath not sent us? Our Lord _came_, and we come, _not to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance: passionate_ sinners, (such as
these whereof you complain) as well as those of every other kind. Nor
can it be expected they should be wholly delivered from their sin, as
soon as they begin to hear his word.
* 27. A greater stumbling-block than this is laid before you, by those
that _say and do not_. Such I take it for granted will be among us,
although we purge them out as fast as we can: persons that _talk much_
of religion, that _commend_ the preachers, perhaps are diligent in
hearing them: it may be, read all their books, and sing their hymns;
and yet no change is wrought in their hearts. Were they of old time as
lions in their houses? They are the same still. Were they (in low life)
slothful or intemperate? Were they tricking or dishonest? Over-reaching
or oppressive? Or did they use to borrow and not pay? _The Ethiopian
hath not changed his skin._ Were they (in high life) delicate, tender,
self-indulgent? Were they nice in furniture or apparel? Were they fond
of trifles, or of their own dear persons? _The Leopard hath not changed
her spots._ Yet their being with us for a time proves no more, than
that we have not the miraculous discernment of spirits.
* Others you may find, in whom there was a real change. But it was
only for a season. They are now turned back, and are two-fold more the
children of hell than before. Yet neither is this any manner of proof,
that the former work was not of God. No, not though these apostates
should, with the utmost confidence, say all manner of evil against
us. I expect they should. For every other injury hath been forgiven,
and will be to the end of the world. But hardly shall any one forgive
the intolerable injury, of _almost persuading him to be a Christian_.
When these men therefore who were with us, but went out from among
us, assert things that may cause your ears to tingle, if you consider
either the scripture, or the nature of man, it will not stagger you at
all. Much less will it excuse you, for not acknowledging the work in
general to be of God.
* 28. But to all this it may possibly be replied, “When you bring your
credentials with you, when you prove by _miracles_ what you assert,
then we will acknowledge that God hath sent you.”
What is it you would have us _prove_ by _miracles_? That the _doctrines_
we preach are true? This is not the way to prove that: (as our first
_reformers_ replied to those of the church of _Rome_, who, you may
probably remember, were continually urging them with this very demand).
We prove the _doctrines_ we preach, by scripture and reason: and, if
need be, by antiquity.
What else is it then we are to prove by _miracles_?
Is it, 1. That _A. B._ was for many years without God in the world, a
common swearer, a drunkard, a sabbath-breaker?
Or, 2. That he is not so now?
Or, 3. That he continued so till he heard us preach, and from that time
was another man? Not so. The proper way to prove these facts, is by
the testimony of competent witnesses: and these witnesses are ready,
whenever required, to give full evidence of them.
Or would you have us prove by miracles,
4. That this was not done _by our own power or holiness_? That God only
is able to raise the dead, those who are dead in trespasses and sins?
Nay, _if_ you _hear not_ Moses _and the prophets_ and apostles on this
head, _neither would you believe tho’ one rose from the dead_.
It is therefore utterly unreasonable and absurd to require or expect
the proof of _miracles_, in questions of such a kind, as are always
decided, by proofs of quite another nature.
29. “But you relate them yourself.” I relate just what I saw, from
time to time: and this is true, that some of those circumstances seem
to go beyond the ordinary course of nature. But I do not peremptorily
determine, whether they were supernatural, or no? Much less do I rest
upon them, either the proof of other _facts_, or of the _doctrines_
which I preach. I prove these in the _ordinary_ way; the one by
testimony, the other by scripture and reason.
“But if you can work _miracles_ when you please, is not this the surest
way of proving them? This would put the matter out of dispute at once,
and supersede all other proof.”
You seem to lie under an entire mistake, both as to the nature and use
of _miracles_. It may reasonably be questioned, whether there ever was
that man living upon earth, except the man Christ Jesus, that could
work miracles _when he pleased_. God only _when he pleased_, exerted
that power, and by whomsoever it pleased him.
But if a man could work _miracles when he pleased_, yet is there no
scripture authority, nor even example for doing it in order to satisfy
such a demand as this. I do not read, that either our Lord, or any
of his apostles, wrought any miracle on such an occasion. Nay, how
sharply does our Lord rebuke those who made a demand of this kind? When
_certain of the scribes and of the pharisees answered, saying, Master,
we would see a sign from thee_; (Observe, this was their method of
_answering_ the strong reasons whereby he had just proved the works
in question to be of God.) _He answered and said to them, an evil and
adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. But there shall no sign be
given to it, but the sign of the prophet_ Jonas, _Matthew_ xii. 38, 39.
_An evil and adulterous generation!_ Else they would not have needed
such a kind of proof. Had they been _willing to do his will_, they
would, without this, have known that the doctrine was of God.
* _Miracles_ therefore are quite needless in such a case. Nor are they
so conclusive a proof as you imagine. If a man could and did work them,
in defence of any doctrine, yet this would not _supersede other proof_.
For there may be τερατα Ψευδους _lying wonders_, miracles wrought in
support of falshood. Still therefore his doctrine would remain to be
proved, from the proper topicks of scripture and reason. And these
even without _miracles_ are sufficient. But _miracles_ without these
are not. Accordingly our Saviour and all his apostles, in the midst of
their greatest miracles, never failed to prove every _doctrine_ they
taught, by clear scripture and cogent reason.
30. I presume, by this time you may perceive the gross absurdity,
of demanding _miracles_ in the present case: seeing one of the
propositions in question, (over and above our general doctrines) _viz._
“That sinners are reformed,” can only be proved by testimony: and the
other, “this cannot be done but by the power of God,” needs no proof,
being self-evident.
“Why, I did once myself rejoice to hear, (says a grave citizen, with an
_air_ of great _importance_) that so many sinners were reformed, till
I found they were only turned from one wickedness to another: that they
were turned from cursing or swearing, or drunkenness, into ♦a no less
_damnable_ sin ♣that of _schism_.”
♦ insert “a” per Errata
♣ delete “than” per Errata
Do you know what you say? You have, I am afraid, a confused huddle of
ideas in your head. And I doubt, you have not _capacity_ to clear them
up yourself; nor _coolness_ enough, to receive help from others.
However I will try. What is _schism_? Have you any determinate idea of
it? I ask ♦the rather, because I have found, by repeated experiments,
that a common _English_ tradesman receives no more light, when he hears
or reads, “This is schism,” than if he heard or read
_Bombalio, stridor, clangor, taratantara, murmur._
♦ “thee” replaced with “the” per Errata
Honest neighbour, don’t be angry. Lay down your hammer, and let us talk
a little on this head.
You say, “We are in the damnable sin of _schism_, and therefore in as
bad a state as adulterers or murderers.”
I ask once more, What do you mean by _schism_? “Schism! Schism! Why,
it is separating from the church.” Ay, so it is. And yet _every_
separating from the church to which we once belonged, is not schism.
Else you will make all the _English_ to be schismatics, ♦by separating
from the church of _Rome_. “But we had just cause.” So doubtless we had:
whereas schism is a _causeless_ separation from the church of Christ.
So far so good. But you have many steps to take before you can make
good that conclusion, that a separation from a _particular national_
church, such as the church of _England_ is, whether with sufficient
cause or without, comes under the scriptural notion of _schism_.
♦ insert “by” per Errata
However, taking this for granted, will you aver in cool blood, that all
who die in such a separation, that is, every one who dies a Quaker, a
Baptist, an Independent, or a Presbyterian, is as infallibly damned as
if he died in the act of murder or adultery? Surely you start at the
thought! It makes even nature recoil. How then can you reconcile it to
the love that _hopeth all things_?
31. But whatever state they are in, who _causelessly separate_ from the
church of _England_, it affects not those of whom we are speaking; for
they _do not separate_ from it at all.
You may easily be convinced of this, if you will only weigh the
particulars following.