Chapter VII: Preface (5)

And if both the article and homily of the Church of _England_ expresly 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 with GOD, 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, _Romans_ vi. 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 a _me genoito_; and so reply these itinerants, my Lords, “GOD forbid.” For what says the _12th, article_ of our Church? “Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away sins, and endure the severity of GOD’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to GOD in CHRIST, 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 of GOD? for what says our _13th article_? “Works done before the grace of CHRIST, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to GOD, for as much as they spring not of faith in JESUS 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 as GOD hath 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 judicious Mr. _Chillingworth_ are 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 judgment Mr. _Chillingworth_ might 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 of GOD, then Mr. _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 of _St. Paul_’s) out of the _Honeycomb of Free Justification_, written by one Mr. _Eaton_, of _Trinity College_ in _Cambridge_, printed at _London_ in the year 1642. “Free justification was first enjoined to be diligently taught, for the reformation of the church, by King _Henry_ VIII. but was by King _Edward_ VI. and Queen _Elizabeth_, 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 with GOD. For being justified by faith we have peace with GOD, _Romans_ v. 1. and our assurance of free salvation by JESUS CHRIST, and is therefore called the justification of life, _Romans_ v. 18. ‘For whom GOD justifieth, them he also glorifieth,’ _Romans_ viii. 30.

♦3d. “Because it is the chiefest cause and means to discover and suppress the _Romish_ antichrist, 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. _Galatians_ v. 13.

♦ A second point is not mentioned.

4th. “To direct ministers, ὀρθοποδεῖν to go with a right foot to the truth of the gospel, _Galatians_ ii. 14. in sound preaching, and pure declaring of the word of GOD, 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 of GOD’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, _Galatians_ i. 6. and yet is the true strength, happiness and safety of the whole land, _Isaiah_ lxii. 1‒6.”

“Hereupon, the 5th part of the sermon against disobedience and rebellion, established by Queen _Elizabeth_, teacheth the commons, that such bishops or ecclesiastical persons, as by pride and ambitious rule, do by terms of error, schism, or heresy, hinder this _main light of GOD’s word_ from the people, are the _chiefest traytors_ in the land: and the 6th and last part largely teacheth, that such subjects and commons to whom, through ignorance of GOD’s word, this light of righteousness, and this sun of understanding doth not shine, although they may brag, as did sometimes the _Jewish_ clergy and people, that they cannot lack knowledge, yet are such by their blind dead faith, traytors to GOD, traytors to their king, traytors to their own souls and bodies, and traytors to the whole land and country.”

Thus far Mr. _Eaton_. And whether he or Mr. _Chillingworth_ wrote 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 of _justification by faith alone_, carry christianity to an extreme? or, whether or not this author, by making moral duties a condition of our acceptance with GOD, 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’s 10th _query_, page 12th. “Whether it be for the service of religion, to discourage people from reading Archbishop _Tillotson_’s Sermons and the _Whole 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 by CHRIST) 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 termed _Half the Duty of Man_; and the former, like our author, contrary to the laws of church and state, makes good works a _condition_ of our acceptance with GOD, and of our being justified in his sight. And though I might have spared my _borrowed comparison_ of putting the Archbishop on a level with _Mahomet_, (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 same _query, page 13th_, that either his Grace, or the author of the _Whole Duty of Man_, explained the whole work of our redemption by CHRIST. 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 the _Whole 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 to GOD at all? What is this, my Lords, but, ♦_Pharaoh_ like, to command GOD’s _Israel_ to 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 of _England_, and so by preaching up the doctrine of justification in the sight of GOD, partly _by works_, and partly _by faith_, bring them half way to the church of _Rome_? 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 in CHRIST as the LORD their righteousness, and then exhort those that believe, 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’s _9th query_, 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 to _their doctrines_ and _discipline_, and embracing christianity upon _their 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, all _gratis 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 in particular communicated with the church of _Scotland_, and preached among the churches in _New-England_? Do not the generality of the clergy cry out against me as a latitudinarian, and look upon me for so doing, as the bigotted _Jews_ did on _Peter_, for going unto the uncircumcised _Gentiles_; 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 them _a few young heads_. And how unwarily has he thereby shewed his ignorance of the lively oracles of GOD? For has he never read what _David_ saith, _Psalms_ viii. 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 Corinthians_ i. 27, 28. “But GOD hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise; and GOD hath 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, hath GOD chosen, 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, unless GOD was with them?

But our Author, it seems, looks upon what they call success, in a different light, and therefore, in this _9th Query_, 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 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.” To prove this particular part of the Query, he refers to passages which my Lord of _London_ was pleased to extract out of my third Journal some years ago, such as, “I offered JESUS CHRIST freely to them;――I think _Wales_ is excellently well prepared for the gospel of CHRIST;――Received news of the wonderful progress of the gospel in _Yorkshire_, under the ministry of my dear brother _Ingham_;――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 offering CHRIST freely, 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 of _England_, 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 the _fundamental doctrine_ of the gospel, I mean justification by faith alone in the sight of GOD, must be necessarily every where preached down? Does not _Luther_ call 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 the _aged 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 an _essential mark_ of the co-operation of the Spirit of GOD. And therefore, my Lords, is not our Author very unfair in stating his _4th Query_, 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 of GOD? 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 into sudden agonies and screamings, _Acts_ ii. 37. when “they were pricked to the heart, and said unto _Peter_ and 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, _Acts_ x. 29, 30. “who _sprang in_, and came _trembling_ and _fell down_ before _Paul_ and _Silas_; and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Or what would he think of _Paul_, who _trembling_ and _astonished_, _Acts_ ix. 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 with _Festus_ in 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 of GOD, written for our learning? Is not GOD the 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 as _suddenly_ and _instantaneously_ as in the first planting of the gospel church?

But it seems, by _Query 7_, page 10, that our Author doubts whether there be any such thing as a _sudden_ and _instantaneous 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 of _England_, 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 it not 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 a _sudden, instantaneous change_, upon which the very essence of baptismal regeneration, that DIANA of the _present clergy_, entirely depends?

Besides, with what confidence or rules of fair reasoning can he here enquire, “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 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, _exclusive_ of 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 their GOD? 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 in _England_, 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 the _foundation of comfort_ which these itinerants lay and depend on is, the compleat and _all-sufficient righteousness of JESUS_, and the new birth or change wrought in the heart, is by them looked upon _only as an evidence_ that 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 Corinthians_ iii. 11. “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is CHRIST JESUS,”――“who (as he speaks in the first chapter of the same epistle, verse 30.) is made unto us of GOD, 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 his _11th Query_, page 13, “Whether, the frame of human nature fairly considered, the Author of the _Whole 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 the _Whole Duty of Man_ may 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 of GOD?” Whatever recreations people take to the glory of GOD, these itinerants, my Lords, think are quite allowable: but if they are made use of meerly for self-pleasing, and not to GOD’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 the _Whole Duty of Man_, or any other Author whatsoever, hath set any other bounds, or fixed 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 to GOD? 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 of GOD? Is this going any further than the Apostle did, who so strictly cautions christians “not to grieve the Spirit of GOD, 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 at _Maryland_, who were disposed to cards; and also a passage out of my letter from _New-Brunswick_, occasioned, if I mistake not, by meeting a man who thought it allowable to play at cards in the _Christmas_ holidays, from the liberty given him by the Author of the _Whole 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 of _all kinds_ which 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 the 75th canon? “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_, or _tables_, or any other _unlawful 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 of GOD, 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, according to 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 of GOD, 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 a _clergyman_, are they not in a degree equally unseemly in _laymen_, 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 of GOD, 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 unto GOD?” 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 the _Roman Emperor_ to 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 his _12th Query_, page 12, wherein he enquires, “Whether the strong expressions which are found in their printed Journals, of _extraordinary presences_ of GOD, 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 of _London_, in his _last pastoral letter_ against 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 no _enthusiast_? 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 many _irregularities_ which are justly charged upon this _anonymous Author_, if he asks “whether the strong expressions which are found in _their_ printed Journals (I suppose he would have said _his_ printed Journals, for I find under this Query no Journals referred to but mine) of extraordinary presences of GOD 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?” 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 upon GOD? 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 of _Gloucester_ (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 a _more immediate manner_ in my administrations at one time, than another? Or is it not 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 of GOD, 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 of _Litchfield_ and _Coventry_, who reckon the indwelling, and inward witnessing of, as also praying and preaching by the Spirit, among the _karismata_, 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 learnt CHRIST? No, they believe that JESUS is 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 of GOD; 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 from GOD, and helping their infirmities, and assisting them in prayer when called to speak to GOD for 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 thousands whose 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 from GOD, they continue to this day, witnessing both to small and great the grand doctrines of the Reformation, _justification by faith alone_ in the imputed righteousness of JESUS CHRIST, and the necessity of the _indwelling of the Spirit_ in 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,” _Query 9th_, 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 of GOD, to obey man rather than GOD, judge ye.” And though for so doing, they should be mobbed, as they frequently have been, and though GOD be 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 commanded _Timothy_ to approve himself a minister of GOD _in 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 of JESUS CHRIST and his Apostles in the New-Testament, (whatsoever our Author may say, _Query 8th_ page 11.) to bear a faithful testimony against them. And being called by the Providence of GOD abroad, 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 what GOD had 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 last _Query_ of this 2d Part); or whether they were written with a single eye to the Redeemer’s glory, they are willing to leave to the determination of that GOD, 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.

SOME
REMARKS
Upon a late
CHARGE against ENTHUSIASM,

Delivered by

The Right Reverend Father in GOD, RICHARD, Lord Bishop of
_Litchfield_ and _Coventry_, to the Reverend the CLERGY in the
several parts of the Diocess of _Litchfield_ and _Coventry_,
in a _Triennial Visitation_ of the same in 1741; and published
at their request in the present Year 1744.

In a LETTER to the Rev. the CLERGY of that Diocess.

Matthew xi. 25, 26. _At that time Jesus answered and said, I
thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because that
thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast
revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed
good in thy sight._

TO
The Reverend the CLERGY
Of the Diocess of
LITCHFIELD and COVENTRY.

On Board the _Wilmington_, Captain _Darling_,
_September 20, 1744_.

_Reverend Brethren_,

AS you profess to know the scriptures, I need not inform you, that the character of _young Elihu_ shines in the 32d chapter of the book of _Job_ with a superior lustre, above that of his other three friends who came to converse with him. The humility and modesty wherewith he first addresses himself to them is peculiarly amiable. “I am young, says he, and ye are very old, wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you my opinion. I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.” But knowing by experience, that “great men are not always wise, neither do the aged understand judgment, he said, Hearken unto me, and I also will shew my opinion.” And that they might not censure him for rashness in speaking, he assures them, verses 11, and 12. that he had well weighed the matter before he broke silence. “Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons, whilst you searched out what to say. Yea, I attended unto you; and behold there was none of you that convinced _Job_, or that answered his words.” And that they might not be offended at his plain speaking, or expect that he would be over-awed from delivering his soul, by their superiority in age, learning, or circumstances of life, in the two last verses of the chapter, he boldly, but honestly tells them what they were to expect from him. “Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man, for I know not to give flattering titles: In so doing my Maker would soon take me away.” And it is very remarkable, that though we are told this young man’s wrath was kindled against _Job_ and his three friends, verses 2 and 3. and though (as it appears from the ensuing chapters) he spoke very close and cutting things, yet at the end of the book, we find no blame laid on him by the great heart-searching GOD; whereas the other three are severely reproved, and commanded to apply to _Job_ for the benefit of his prayers.

Animated by, and willing to copy after so bright an example, I now sit down to write you this letter; in which I would beg leave to make some remarks on your Right Reverend Diocesan’s late _charge against enthusiasm_. Had I continued in my native country, I should have taken the freedom to have written to his Lordship himself; but as I heard that he was very aged, and probably before this could reach _England_, might be called to give up his account to the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, I thought it most advisable to direct this letter to you, at whose request, as appears by the title-page, this charge was printed.

It is not my design to enter upon a critical examination of every paragraph. I would observe in general, that his Lordship’s main design, from the beginning to the end of it, is, to prove “that the indwelling and inward witnessing of the Spirit in believers hearts (if there were ever any such things at all) as also praying and preaching by the Spirit, are all the _extraordinary gifts_ and operations of the Holy Ghost, belonging only to the apostolical and primitive times, and consequently all pretensions to such favours in these last days are vain and enthusiastical.” In order to evince this, his Lordship selects several passages of holy writ, which, in his opinion, are misapplied by those whom his Lordship is pleased to stile _modern enthusiasts_, and undertakes to shew, page 11th, “that they are to be interpreted chiefly, if not only, of the state of the apostolical and primitive church, and that they very little, if at all, relate to the present state of christians.” Whether or not his Lordship hath succeeded in his undertaking, will best appear by a candid and impartial review thereof.

The first attempt of this nature which we meet with in his Lordship’s charge, is page the 12th. His words are these: “That I may proceed in a regular manner, with regard to those passages of scripture that I shall select on this occasion, I chuse to begin with the original promise of the Spirit, as made by our LORD, a little before he left the world. It occurs in the 14th and 16th chapters of St. _John_’s gospel; in which he uses these words: ‘When the Spirit of truth is come, (whom CHRIST had just before promised to send from the Father, chapter 14th, verse 16th) he will guide you into all truth, and he will shew you things to come.’ And again, ‘the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you.’ It is very clear (proceeds his Lordship) from the bare recital of these words, that as they were spoken to the apostles, so they peculiarly belong to the apostles themselves, or to the inspired persons in the primitive church.”

But granting that these words do belong _peculiarly_ to the apostles, does it therefore follow, that they do not at all belong to their successors, or in common to all believers upon whom the ends of the world are come? Were not the apostles then representatives of the whole church? And may not what was spoken to them, in a proper degree be said to be spoken to us and to our children, and to as many as the LORD our GOD shall call? Does not his Lordship confess, page 13th, “that in one of these passages it is added, that the Father will give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever?” And does not his Lordship allow, page 14th, “that in the largest sense in which this may be understood, it is synonymous with CHRIST’s promise to his disciples at his ascension, that he would be with them _always_, even to the end of the world;” that is, as himself explains it, “by the perpetual presence of the Holy Spirit, as the guardian of his church ’till the end of the world?” But how can CHRIST be with his church by the perpetual presence of his Spirit, or how can the Holy Spirit “be the guardian of his church ’till the end of the world,” unless it is by opening and bringing all things to our remembrance, whatsoever JESUS hath said to us in his revealed will, guiding us thereby into all truth, and teaching us all things necessary to eternal salvation?

This promise, it is true, as his Lordship observes, page the 15th, “was fulfilled in a most solemn manner by the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, and others with them, at the feast of Pentecost, that is recorded so particularly in the second chapter of the _Acts_ of the Apostles.” And it is as true, (as his Lordship intimates page 16th) “that St. _Peter_ makes an application of the prophecy of _Joel_, to the miraculous effusion of the Spirit on that memorable occasion.

But does not his Lordship by intimating, that this promise of our LORD was wholly compleated on the day of Pentecost, prove too much? for does it not then follow, that no one after the day of Pentecost was to expect the Holy Ghost to bring all things to their remembrance, to teach them all things, and shew them things to come? How then could this promise be fulfilled in the apostle _Paul_, who was converted some time after? or how could this remain in the primitive church in the inspired persons, or abide with the church for ever to the end of the world? And supposing the apostle _Peter_ does make an application of the prophecy of _Joel_ to the miraculous effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, _Acts_ the 2d, verses 16th, 17th, &c. does it therefore follow, that this promise of our Saviour extends no farther than that day? Does he any where intimate any such thing through his whole discourse? Or is it any new thing for prophecies to have several fulfilments? Is not that prophecy, “Out of _Egypt_ have I called my son,” which was originally spoken concerning GOD’s _Israel_, applied by the evangelist _Matthew_, chapter 2d. verse 15th, to the Son of GOD himself? And therefore granting that this promise was in an extraordinary degree fulfilled in the day of Pentecost, how does it follow, that it is not now, and will be in an ordinary way, fulfilling to the end of the world? And consequently, may not this promise of our LORD be pleaded by all his disciples, for the indwelling of his blessed Spirit, and his inward teaching, by the instrumentality of his revealed will, _now_ as well as formerly (especially since his Lordship, page 15th, clears us from pretending to the operations of the miraculous kind) without being censured for so doing as _modern enthusiasts_.

But this inward teaching and indwelling of the Spirit, his Lordship will by no means allow even the primitive christians to have had in common, and therefore, page 35th (which I come to next, for method’s sake) he comments upon another remarkable scripture, that, in his Lordship’s opinion, ‘has been misapplied to later ages, and indeed to the present times, by several enthusiasts, but was really peculiar to the times of the apostles.’ It occurs, says his Lordship, page _ibid._ in the first epistle of St. _John_, chapter ii. verse 20th, 27th. “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. But the anointing which ye have received of him, abideth in you: but as the same anointing teacheth you all things, and is truth, and is no lie; and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”