Page images

cited all my own words ? At least all the words of that paragraph, and not have mangled it, as Mr. Church did before?

It runs thus, (Journal IV. Vol. I. page 323.) Saturday 28. I showed at large, (in order to answer those who taught that none but they who are full of faith and the Holy Ghost, ought ever to communicate,) 1. That the Lord's Supper was ordained by God, to be a mean of conveying to men either preventing, or justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities. 2. That the persons for whom it was ordained, are all those who know and feel that they want the grace of God, either to restrain them from sin, or to show their sins forgiven, or to renew their souls in the image of God. 3. That inasmuch as we come to his table, not to give him any thing, but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us, there is no prerious preparation indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever he pleases to give. And, 4. That no fitness is required at the time of communicating, 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 all other ways of his appointment.'

In the second letter to Mr. Church, I explain myself farther on this head. “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,” ' (p. 117.) You mark these as my words; but I know them not. 62. 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 whole 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 bell, 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.

10. And now what can I say? Had your lordship never seen this ! That is hardly to be imagined. But if you had, how was it possible your lordship should thus explicitly and solemnly charge me, in the presence of God and all my brethren, (only, the person so charged was not present) with “meaning by those words to set aside self-examination and repentance for sins past, and resolutions of living better for the time to come, as things no way necessary to make a worthy communicant !” (p. 18.) If an evidence at the bar should swerve from truth, an equitable judge may place the thing in a true ligbt, But if the judge himself shall bear false witness, where then can we find a remedy?

Actual preparation was here entirely out of the question. It might be absolutely and indispensably necessary, for any thing I had either said or meant to the contrary. For it was not at all in my thoughts. And the babitual preparation which I had in terms declared to be in

VOL. 8.--Q9

dispensably necessary, was 'a willingness to know and to do tije whole will of God,' and earnest desires of universal holiness.? Does your lordship think this is “meant to set aside all repentance for sins past, and resolutions of living better for the time to come ?"

11. Your lordship next falls with all your might upon that strange assertion, as you term it, We come to his table, not to give him any thing, but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us.' “Whereas, says your lordship, “in the exhortation at the time of receiving, the people are told, that they must give most humble and hearty thanks, and immediately after receiving, both minister and people join in offering and presenting themselves before God,” (p. 20, 21.) ÓGod! in what manner are the most sacred things here treated! The most venerable mysteries of our religion! What quibbling, what playing upon words is here ! Not to give him any thing.'—“Yes, to give him thanks.” O, my lord, are these the words of a father of the church ?

12. Your lordship goes on, “To the foregoing account of these modern principles and doctrines,-it may not be improper to subjoin a few observations upon the indirect practices of the same people in gaining proselytes,” (p. 23, 24.)-“1. They persuade the people, that the established worship, with a regular attendance upon it, is not sufficient to answer the ends of devotion.”-Your lordship mentioned this likewise in the Observations. In your fourth query it stood thus : • Whether a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way, does not answer the true ends of devotion ? Suffer me to repeat part of the answer then given.

• I suppose, by devotion you mean public worship; by the true ends of it, the love of God and man; and by “ a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way," the going as often as we can to our parish church, and to the sacrament there administered. If so, the question is, Whether this attendance on those offices, does not produce the love of God and man? I answer, sometimes it does; and sometimes it does not. I myself thus attended them for many years; and yet am conscious to myself, that during that whole time, I had no more of the love of God than a stone. And I know many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of serious persons, who are ready to testify the same thing. I subjoined, ' 1. We continually exhort all who attend on our preaching, to attend the offices of the church. And they do pay a more regular attendance there than ever they did before. 2. Their attending the church did not, in fact, answer those ends at all, till they attended this preaching also. 3. It is the preaching remission of sins through Jesus Christ, which alone answers the true ends of devotion.

13. II. “ They censure the clergy,” says your lordship, “as less zealous than themselves, in the several branches of the ministerial funetion.-For this they are undeservedly reproached by these noisy, itinerant leaders.” (p. 24, 25.) My lord, I am not conscious to myself of this. I do not willingly compare myself with any man, much less do I reproach my brethren of the clergy, whether they deserve

it or not. But it is needless to add any more on this head than what was said above a year ago. [Second letter to Mr. Church.)

• I must explain myself a little on that practice which you so often term abusing the clergy. I have many times great sorrow and heaviness in my heart, on account of these my brethren. And this sometimes constrains me to speak to them, in the only way which is now in my power: and sometimes (though rarely) to speak of them, of a few, not all in general. In either case, I take an especial care, 1. To speak nothing but the truth. 2. To speak this with all plainness : and, 3. With love, and in the spirit of meekness. Now, if you will call this abusing, railing, or reviling, you must. But still I dare not refrain from it. I must thus rail, thus abuse sinners of all sorts and degrees, unless I will perish with them.'

14. III. “They value themselves upon extraordinary strictnesses and severities in life, and such as are beyond what the rules of Christianity require. They captivate the people by such professions and appearances of uncommon sanctity.-But that which can never fail of a general respect—is a quiet and exemplary life, free from the many follies and indiscretions which those restless and vagrant teachers are apt to fall into." p. 25.)

Ву “extraordinary strictnesses and severities,” I presume your lordship means, the abstaining from wine and animal food; which, it is sure, Christianity does not require. But if you do, I fear your lordship is not thoroughly informed of the matter of fact. I began to do this, about twelve years ago, when I had no thought of “annoying parochial ministers," or of " captivating any people” thereby, unless it were the Chicasaw or Choctaw Indians. But I resumed the use of them both, about two years after, for the sake of some who thought I made it a point of conscience; telling them • I will eat flesh while the world standeth, rather than make my brother to offend.' Dr. Cheyne advised me to leave them off again, assuring me, • Till you do, you will never be free from fevers.' And since I have taken his advice, I have been free (blessed be God) from all bodily disorders.* Would to God I knew any method of being equally free from all follies and indiscretions. But this I never expect to attain, till my spirit returns to God.

15. But in how strange a manner does your lordship represent this! What a construction do you put upon it! “ Appearances of an uncommon sanctity,” in order to “captivate the people.- Pretensions to more exalted degrees of strictness, to make their


into weak minds and fickle heads." (page 25.) « Pretences to greater sanctity whereby they draw over to themselves the most ignorant of the people.” (p. 4.) If these are “appearances of uncommon sanctity, (which indeed might bear a dispute) how does your lordship know, that they are only appearances ? That they do not spring from the heart ? Suppose these were “exalted degrees of strictness,” is your lordship absolutely assured, that we practise them only " to make our


* I continued this about two years.

way into weak minds and fickle heads ?” Where is the proof, that these “pretences to greater sanctity,” (as your lordship is pleased to phrase them,) are mere pretences, and have nothing of reality or sincerity in them?

My lord, this is an accusation of the highest nature. If we are guilty, we are not so much as moral Heathens. We are monsters not only unworthy of the Christian name, but unfit for human society. It tears up all pretences to the love of God and man: to justice, mercy, or truth. But how is it proved? Or does your lordship read the heart

, and so pass sentence without any proof at all? O, my lord, ought an accusation of the lowest kind to be thus received, even against the lowest of the people? How much less can this be reconciled with the apostolic advice to the bishop of Ephesus, · Against a presbyter, receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses ;' and those face to face. When it is thus proved,

them that sin, rebuke before all.'Your lordship, doubtless, remembers the words that follow, (how worthy to be written in your heart!) • I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things, without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.' 1 Tim. v. 19, 20, 21

IV. 16. “They mislead the people into an opinion of the high merit of punctual attendances on their performances, to the neglect of the business of their station.” (p. 26.) My lord, this is not so. You yourself, in this very charge, have cleared us from one part of this accusation. You have borne us witness, (p. 10,) that we disclaim all merit, even in (really) good works: how much more, in such works as we continually declare are not good, but very evil ? Such as the attending sermons, or any public offices whatever, “ to the neglect of the business of our station."

When your lordship urged this before, in the Observations, I openly declared my belief (Farther Appeal, part 1.) That true religion cannot lead into a disregard or disesteem of the common duties and offices of life: that, on the contrary, it leads men to discharge all those duties with the strictest and closest attention: that Christianity requires this attention and diligence, in all stations and in all conditions : that the performance of the lowest offices of life, as unto God, is truly a serving of Christ, and that this is the doctrine I preach continually ;' a fact, whereof any man may easily be informed. Now it after all this, your lordship will repeat the charge, as if I had not once opened my mouth concerning it, I cannot help it. I can say no more. I commend my case to God.

17. Having considered what your lordship has advanced, concerning dangerous doctrines and indirect practices, I now come to the instructions your lordship gives to the clergy of your diocess. How awful a thing is this! the very occasion carries in it a solemnity not to be expressed. Here is an angel of the church of Christ, one of the stars in God's right-hand, calling together all the subordinate paslors, for whom he is to give an account to God; and directing them (in the name and by the authority of the great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ, the first begotten from the dead, the Prince of the kings of the earth') how to make full proof of their ministry,' that they may be pure from the blood of all men ;' how to take heed unto themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers ;' how to feed the flock of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood!' To this end they are all assembled together. And what is the substance of all his instructions ? · Reverend brethren, I charge you all, lift up your voice like a trumpet! and warn, and arm, and fortify all mankind—against a people called Methodists."

True it is, your lordship gives them several advices; but all in order to this end. You direct them, to “inculcate the excellency of our liturgy, as a wise, grave, and serious service:" to show “their people, that a diligent attendance on their business, is a serving of God; punctually to perform both the public offices of the church, and all other pastoral duties:” and to “engage the esteem of their parishioners, by a constant regularity of life." But all these your lordship recommends eo nomine, as means to that great end, " The arming and fortifying their people against the Moravians or Methodists, and their doctrines."

Is it possible! Could your lordship discern no other enemies of the Gospel of Christ ? Are there no other heretics or schismatics on earth? Or even within the four seas? Are there no Papists, no Deists in the land? Or are their errors of less importance ? Or are their numbers in England less considerable? Or less likely to increase? Does it appear then that they have lost their zeal for making proselytes? Or, are all the people so guarded against them already, that their labour is in vain ?. Can your lordship answer these few, plain questions, to the satisfaction of your own conscience ? Have the Methodists (so called) already monopolized all the sins, as well as errors in the nation? Is Methodism the only sin, or the only fatal or spreading sin, to be found within the bills of mortality! Have two thousand (or more) ambassadors of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God,' no other business than to "guard, warn, arm, and fortify” their people against this? O my lord, if this. engross their time and strength, (as it must, if they follow your lordship’s instructions,) they will not give an account with joy, either of themselves or of their flock in that day!

11. Your lordship seems in some measure sensible of this, when you very gently condemn their opinion who think the “Methodists might better be disregarded and despised, than taken notice of and opposed—if it were not for the disturbance they give to the parochial ministers, and their unwarrantable endeavours to seduce the people from their lawful pastors.” (p. 22.) The same complaint with which your lordship opened your charge. " They give shameful disturbances to the parochial clergy-they annoy the established ministry, using very unwarrantable methods, first, to prejudice their people against them, and then to seduce their flocks from them.” (p. 4.)

Whether we seduce them or not, (which will be presently considered) I am sorry your lordship should give any countenance to that low, senseless, and now generally exploded slander, that we do it for

« PreviousContinue »