The PRINCIPLES of a METHODIST Farther explained:

Occasioned by the Rev. Mr. Church’s Second Letter to Mr. Wesley.

In a Second Letter to that GENTLEMAN.

Reverend Sir,

* 1.AT the time that I was reading your former letter, I expected to hear from you again. And I was not displeased with the expectation; believing it would give me a fresh opportunity of weighing the sentiments I might have too lightly espoused, and the actions which perhaps I had not enough considered. Viewing things in this light, I cannot but esteem you, not an enemy, but a friend; and one, in some respects, better qualified to do me real service than those whom the world accounts so; who may be hindered, by their prejudice in my favour, either from observing what is reproveable, or from using that freedom and plainness of speech, which are requisite to convince me of it.

2. It is at least as much with a view to learn myself, as to shew others (what I think) the truth, that I intend to set down a few reflections on some parts of the tract you have lately published. I say, some parts; for it is not my design to answer every sentence in this, any more than in the former. Many things I pass over, because I think them true; many more, because I think them not material: and some, because I am determined not to engage in a useless, if not hurtful controversy.

* 3. Fear indeed is one cause of my declining this: fear (as I said elsewhere¹) not of my adversary, but of myself. I fear my own spirit, lest “I fall where many mightier have been slain.” I never knew one (or but one) man write controversy with what I thought a right spirit. Every disputant seems to think (as every soldier) that he may hurt his opponent as much as he can; nay, that he ought to do his worst to him, or he cannot make the best of his own cause: that so he do not bely, or wilfully misrepresent him, he must expose him as much as he is able. It is enough, we suppose, if we do not shew heat or passion against our adversary. But, not to despite him, or endeavour to make others do so, is quite a work of supererogation.

¹ In the preface to the answer to Mr. Tucker.

* 4. But ought these things to be so? (I speak on the Christian scheme.) Ought we not to love our neighbour as ourselves? And does a man cease to be our neighbour, because he is of a different opinion? Nay, and declares himself so to be? Ought we not, for all this, to do to him as we would he should do to us? But do we ourselves love to be exposed, or set in the worst light? Would we willingly be treated with contempt? If not, why do we treat others thus? And yet, who scruples it? Who does not hit every blot he can, however foreign to the merits of the cause? Who, in controversy, casts the mantle of love over the nakedness of his brother? Who keeps steddily and uniformly to the question, without ever striking at the person? Who shews in every sentence, that he loves his brother only less than the truth?

5. I fear neither you nor I have attained to this. I believe brotherly love might have found a better construction than that of unfairness, art, or disingenuity, to have put either on my not answering every part of your book (a thing which never once entered my thoughts) or on my not reciting all the words of those parts which I did answer. I cannot yet perceive any blame herein. I still account it fair and ingenuous, to pass over both what I believe is right, and what I believe is not dangerously wrong. Neither can I see any disingenuity at all, in quoting only that part of any sentence, against which I conceive the objection lies: nor in abridging any part of any treatise to which I reply, whether in the author’s, or in my own words.

6. If indeed it were so abridged as to alter the sense, this would be unfair. And if this were designedly done, it would be artful and disingenuous. But I am not conscious of having done this at all; although you speak as if I had done it a thousand times. And yet I cannot undertake now, either to transcribe your whole book, or every page or paragraph, which I answer. But I must generally abridge before I reply: and that not only to save time (of which I have none to spare) but often to make the argument clearer, which is best understood when couched in few words.

7. You complain also, of my mentioning, all at once, sentences which you placed at a distance from each other. I do so; and I think it quite fair and ingenuous, to lay together what was before scattered abroad. For instance: you now speak of the conditions of justification, in the 18th and following pages: again, from the 89th to the 102d: and yet again, in the 127th page. Now I have not leisure to follow you to and fro. Therefore what I say on one head, I set in one place.

I. 1. This premised, I come to the letter itself. I begin, as before, with the case of the Moravians: of whom you say, ¹I collected together the character which you had given of these men; the errors and vices which you had charged upon them, and the mischiefs​――they had done among your followers. And I proved, that, in several respects, you had been the occasion of this mischief; and are therefore, in some measure, accountable for it. Let us see what answer you give to all this. 2d letter, page 79.

¹ Mr. Church’s words are printed in italick.

“With regard to the denying degrees in faith, you mentioned, that the Moravian church was cleared from this mistake.” But did you not mention this as one of the tenets of the Moravians? Do you not say, that “you could not agree with Mr. Spangenberg, that none has any faith, so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear?” Do not you represent Mr. Molther, and other Moravians in England, as teaching the same? In short, I have not charged the Moravian church with any thing; but only repeat after you. And if you have accused them, when you knew them to be guiltless, you must bear the blame.

“They do use the ordinances of God with reverence and godly fear.”​――You have charged Mr. Spangenberg and Mr. Molther with teaching, that we ought to abstain from them. And the same you say in general of the Moravian brethren, in your letter to them.​――“But Mr. Molther was quickly after recalled into Germany.” This might be on other accounts. You do not say it was out of any dislike of his doctrines or proceedings. Nor indeed can you, consistently with your next words: “The great fault of the Moravian church seems to lie, in not openly disclaiming all he had said: which in all probability they would have done, had they not leaned to the same opinion.”

You “never knew but one of the Moravian church affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness.” But who was this? No less a person than Count Zinzendorf, their great bishop and patron, whose authority is very high, all in all with them, and to whom you think they pay too much regard.”

2. This is the whole of your reply to this part of my answer. I will now consider it, part by part.

First, With regard to the denying degrees in faith, you mentioned, “that the Moravian church was cleared from this mistake.” But did you not mention this as one of the tenets of the Moravians?​――No; not of the Moravians in general?​――Do you not say, that you “could not agree with Mr. Spangenberg, that none has any faith, so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear?”​――I do say so still. But Spangenberg is not the Moravian church.​――Do you not represent Mr. Molther, and other Moravians in England, as teaching the same?​――I do? three or four in all. But neither are these, the Moravian church.​――In short, I have not charged the Moravian church with any thing; but only repeat after you.​――Indeed you have, in the very case before us. You charge them, with denying degrees in faith. I do not charge them herewith. I openly cleared them from any such charge near six years ago.​――If therefore you have accused them when you knew them to be guiltless, you must bear the blame.​――In this case, I must intreat you to bear it in my stead. For I have not accused them (the Moravian church.) It is you that have accused them. I have again and again declared, they are not guilty.

Secondly, “They do use the ordinances of God with reverence and godly fear.”​――You have charged Mr. Spangenberg and Mr. Molther with teaching, that we ought to abstain from them.​――That we? No. That unbelievers ought. The assertion relates to them only.​――And the same you say in general of the Moravian brethren, in your letter.​――I say, they hold, that “unbelievers ought to abstain from them.” But yet I know and bear witness, they use them themselves, and that with reverence and godly fear?”​――“Mr. Molther was quickly after recalled to Germany.”​――This might be on other accounts. You do not say, it was out of any dislike of his doctrines or proceedings.​――I do not say so; because I am not sure; but I believe it was out of a dislike to some of his proceedings, if not, of his doctrines too.​――Nor indeed can you, consistently with your next words: “The great fault of the Moravian church seems to lie, in not openly disclaiming all he had said” (relating to this head.)​――They did privately disclaim what he had said, of degrees in faith. But I think, that was not enough. And I still believe, they would have done more, “had they not leaned themselves to the same opinion,” touching the ordinances.

Thirdly, You “never knew but one of the Moravian church affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness.”​――But who was this? No less a person than Count Zinzendorf, their great bishop and patron, whose authority is very high, all in all with them, and to whom you think they pay “too much regard.”​――Do you apprehend, where the stress of the argument lies? I never heard one Moravian affirm this, but the Count alone; and him only once; and that once was in the heat of dispute. And hence I inferred, it is not a doctrine of the Moravian church: nay, I doubt, whether it be the Count’s own settled judgment.

3. But I may not dismiss this passage yet. It is now my turn to complain of unfair usage; of the exceeding lame, broken, imperfect manner, wherein you cite my words. For instance; your citation runs thus: You “never knew but one of the Moravian church affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness.”​――Whereas my words are these, “I never knew one of the Moravian church, but that single person, affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness: and perhaps he would not affirm it on reflection.”​――Now why was the former part of the sentence changed, and the latter quite left out?​――Had the whole stood in your tract, just as it does in mine, it must have appeared, I do not here charge the Moravian church.

I complain also, of your manner of replying to the first article of this very paragraph. For you do not cite so much as one line of that answer, to which you profess to reply. My words are, “You ought not to charge the Moravian church with the first of these (errors) since in the very page from which you quote those words, There is no justifying faith, where there ever is any doubt, that note occurs, (viz. 4 journal, page 105.) ‘In the preface to the second journal, the Moravian church is cleared from this mistake.’”​――If you had cited these words, could you possibly have subjoined, I have not charged the Moravian church with any thing; but only repeat after you!

♦4. I have now considered one page of your reply, in the manner you seem to require. But sure you cannot expect I should follow you thus, step by step, through an hundred and forty pages! If you should then think it worth while, to make a second reply, and to follow me in the same manner, we might write indeed; but who would read?​――I return therefore to what I proposed at first, viz. To touch only on what seems of the most importance, and leave the rest just as it lies.

4. You say, (page 80.) With regard to subtlety, evasion, and disguise, you now would have it thought, that you only found this “in many of them; not in all, nor in most.”​――You now would have it thought! Yes, and always, as well as now. For my original charge was, (4 journal, page 104.) “I have found this, in many of you, i. e. much subtlety, much evasion, and disguise.”​――But you add, let the reader judge from the following passages, whether you did not charge the Moravians in general with these crimes. “I had a long conference with those, whom I esteem very highly in love: but I could not yet understand them in one point, Christian openness and plainness of speech. They pleaded for such a reservedness and closeness of conversation. Yet I scarce know what to think considering they had the practice of the whole Moravian church on their side.​――True; in pleading for such a reservedness of conversation, as I could not in any ♦wise approve of; but not in using much subtlety, much evasion and disguise; this I dare not charge on the whole Moravian church.” Those words also, “There is darkness and closeness in all their behaviour, and guile in almost all their words,” I spoke not of all the Moravians, nor of most: but of those who were then in England.” I could not speak it of them all; for I never found any guile in Christian David, Michael Linner, and many others.

5. We are next to see, how you get over the objection I made good in three several particulars, that you have prepared the way for spreading of these tenets. The first you say nothing to here;​――the second you quote very partially thus​――“by countenancing and commending them.” And why would you not add, “And being the occasion of so many of them coming over among us.”​――Because I was not the occasion. I was indeed the first Englishman that ever was at Hernhuth. But before I was at Hernhuth, (I find on later enquiry) the Count himself had been in England.

You “still think, (page 81) That next to some thousands in our own church, the body of the Moravian church, however mistaken some of them are, are, in the main, the best Christians in the world.” I do; “of all whom I have seen;” (you should not omit these words.)​――Those dreadful errors and crimes are here softened into mistakes. (I term them “Errors of judgment and practice.”) I have proved, that you have charged the body with such.​――At present, the proof does not amount to demonstration. There needs a little farther proof, that I charge any dreadful crimes on the body of the Moravians.

I see no manner of inconsistency still, in those accounts of my intercourse with the Moravians, which you suppose irreconcileable with each other. Let any one read them in the journal, and judge.

6. You had said, “Your objections then were nearly the same as now.” You now add, “only with this difference: I was not then assured, that the facts were as I supposed; I did not dare to determine any thing.”​――No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things! As indeed the facts are of such a nature, that you could not but be assured of them, if they were true. Nor do the questions in your letter really imply any doubt of their truth: but are so many appeals to their consciences, and equivalent to strong assertions. And if you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine any thing concerning what you saw, your writing bare suspicions to a body of men in such a manner was inexcusable. This excuse therefore will not serve you, (83.)

I apprehend it will. “I was not then (in September 1738) assured that the facts were as I supposed. [Therefore] I did not [then] dare to determine any thing.” Be pleased to add the immediately following words: “But from November 1. [1739] I saw more and more things, which I could not reconcile with the gospel.”

If you had not omitted these words, you could have had no colour to remark, on my saying, “I did not dare to determine any thing.”​――No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things.​――No, I did not dare to determine, in September 1738, from what I saw in November 1739.​――But the facts are of such a nature, that you could not but be assured of them if they were true.​――I cannot think so. “Is not the Count all in all among you? Do not you magnify your own church too much? Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases?” These facts are by no means of such a nature, as that whoever converses (even intimately) among the Moravians, cannot but be assured of them.​――Nor do the questions in your letter really imply any doubt of their truth.​――No! Are not my very words prefixed to those questions, “Of some other things I stand in doubt”.​――And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts, you would​――plainly answer, whether the fact be as I suppose.​――But [these questions] are so many appeals to their consciences.​――True.​――And equivalent to strong assertions.​――Utterly false.​――If you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine any thing, concerning what you saw [fifteen months after] your writing bare suspicions to a body of men, in such a manner, was inexcusable.​――They were strong presumptions then; which yet I did not write to a body of men, whom I so highly esteemed; no, not even in the tenderest manner, till I was assured, they were not groundless.

7. In a note at the bottom of page 8, you observe, “the Band-society in London began May 1, some time before I set out for Germany.” Would you insinuate here, that you did not set it up, in imitation of the Moravians?​――Sir, I will tell you the naked truth. You had remarked (page 17.) thus​――“You took the trouble of a journey to Germany to them; and were so much in love with their methods, that, at your return hither, you set up their bands among your disciples.” This was an entire mistake: for that society was set up, not only before I returned, but before I set out. And I designed that note to insinuate this to you, without telling your mistake to all the world.

I imagined, that supposing your account of the Moravians true, it would be impossible for any serious Christian to doubt of their being very wicked people.​――I know many serious Christians who suppose it true, and yet believe they are, in the main, good men.​――A much worse character, take the whole body together, cannot be given of a body of men.​――Let us try. “Here is a body of men who have not one spark either of justice, mercy, or truth, among them; who are lost to all sense of right and wrong; who have neither sobriety, temperance, nor charity: who are, in general, liars, drunkards, gluttons, thieves, adulterers, murderers.” I cannot but think, that this is a much worse character than that of the Moravians, take it how you will.​――Let the reader judge how far you are now able to defend them​――Just as far as I did at first. Still I dare not condemn what is good among them; and I will not excuse what is evil.

8. “The Moravians excel in sweetness of behaviour.” What though they use guile and dissimulation?​――Yes.​――“Where is their multitude of errors?” In your own journal.​――I have taken the pains to place them in one view in my remarks; the justness of which with all your art you cannot disprove.​――You have taken the pains to transcribe many words; all which together amount to this, that they (generally) hold universal salvation, and are partly Antinomians (in opinion) partly Quietists. The justness of some of your remarks, if I mistake not, ♦has been pretty fully disproved. As to what you speak of my art, subtlety, and so on, in this and many other places, I look upon it as neither better nor worse than a civil way of calling names.

“To this multitude of crimes ¹I am also an utter stranger.” Then you have charged them wrongfully.​――What do you account guile, &c.​――I account guile, despising self-denial, even in the smallest points, and teaching that those who have not the assurance of faith, may not use the ordinances of God, the Lord’s supper in particular, (this is the real, unaggravated charge) to be faults which cannot be excused. But I do not account them all together a multitude of crimes. I conceive this is a vehement hyperbole.

¹ Second letter, page 84.

The honour of religion, said you, and virtue trampled upon? I answered, “By whom? Not by the Moravians.”​――You reply, And yet you have accused some of these as decrying all the means of grace.​――No. What I accused them of was, teaching that an unbeliever (in their sense) ought to abstain from them​――“Neither did I know, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people.”​――Your journal is before the world; to whom I appeal whether this has not so represented them.​――But how do you here represent your remark, and my answer? My paragraph runs thus, page 10.

“You go on​――How could you so long, and so intimately converse with​――such desperately wicked people as the Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be?​――O Sir, what another assertion is this? The Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be desperately wicked people, while you intimately conversed with them.”​――Utterly false and injurious! I never gave any such account. I conversed with them intimately both at Savannah and Hernhuth. But neither then, nor at any other time, did I know, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people. I think and say​――just the reverse, viz. That tho’ I soon “found among them a few things which I could not approve, yet I believe they are, in the main, some of the best Christians in the world.”​――After this, are you the person, who complains of me, for imperfect and partial quotations?

I added, “You surprize me yet more in going on thus; In God’s name, Sir, is the contempt of almost the whole of our duty, of every Christian ordinance to be so very gently touched?” “Sir, this is not the case. This charge no more belongs to the Moravians than that of murder.” page 11.

You reply, Mr. Spangenberg and Mr. Molther, are accused by name. If falsely, I am sorry both for them and you. Accused? True. But of what? Of the contempt of every Christian ordinance, of almost the whole of our duty? By no means. The plain case is, I accuse them of one thing, viz. “Teaching that an unbeliever should abstain from the ordinances.” You accuse them of another, “contemning every Christian ordinance, and almost the whole of our duty.” And this you would father upon me. I desire to be excused.

9. As to what I said in my letter to the Moravian church, “You can hinder this if you will.​――Therefore if you do not prevent their speaking thus, you do in effect speak thus yourselves.”​――It may be observed, 1. That this letter is dated, August 8, 1741. 2. That from that time the Moravian church did in great measure prevent any of their members speaking thus.

You proceed. You distinguish between the English ♦brethren and the Moravians. These English ♠brethren, I presume, were your followers. Afterwards you represent them as perverted by the Moravians. Before they had spoke these wicked things, you say, they had joined these men, and acted under their direction. If they did not learn them from these new teachers, from whom did they learn them? Not sure from yourself, or any other Methodists. You cannot therefore bring off the Moravians, without condemning your own people. Here therefore you have certainly overshot yourself, page 85.​――Perhaps not.​――These English brethren were, I presume, your followers.​――No; this is your first mistake. I was but a single, private member of that society.​――Afterwards you represent them as perverted by the Moravians.​――I do; but not yet connected with them.​――Before they spoke these wicked things, they had joined these men, and acted under their direction.​――This is another mistake. They did not join these men, nor act by their direction, till long after.​――If they did not learn them from these new teachers, from whom did they learn them?​――You cannot bring off the Moravians, without condemning your own people.​――They learned them from Mr. Molther chiefly; whom I am not at all concerned to bring off.​――Now let all men judge, which of us two has overshot himself!

10. In answer to my objections against the inconsistent accounts you have given of the Moravians​――you say, “They are, I believe, the most self-inconsistent people under the sun.” Would not one imagine, that you here speak of the same persons, or of the whole body of them in general?​――I do, thus far: I ascribe the good to the body, of them in general; the evil to part only of that body, to some of those same persons.

Your method of getting over the contradictions I had charged upon you, is much the same, (page 86.) To distinguish either between the Moravians and the English brethren (tho’ these had been their disciples.​――This has been abundantly answered)​――or between some of the Moravians and others.​――I think a very good method; for propositions are not contradictory, unless they both speak of the same persons.

However, since you persist to affirm, that I am guilty of the contradictions you charged upon me, (page 87.) I think there cannot be a sufficient reply, without reciting the several instances.

11. First, You commend them (the Moravians) for loving one another; and yet charge them with biting and devouring one another.​――I answered, “Them! Whom? Not the Moravians, but the English brethren of Fetter-lane, before their union with the Moravians. Herein then is no shadow of contradiction. For the two sentences do not relate to the same persons.”

You reply, Would you then have us to think, that so much anger and contradiction reigned among your Methodists​――I would have you think, this is nothing to the purpose. Prove the contradiction, and you speak to the point.​――It is plain they had before this been perverted by the Moravians, and that​――they were unwilling to be taught by any others.​――They​――that is, nearly half of the society. But here is no proof of the contradiction still.

2. You say, “They had well nigh destroyed brotherly-love from among us, partly by cautions against natural love” [Partly by occasioning almost continual disputes]​――So they had. But we had then no connexion with them. Neither therefore does this contradict their loving one another.​――You reply, As if they can truly love each other, who teach you not to do it, and stir up divisions and disturbances among you.​――You should say, if you would repeat after me, “Who caution you against natural love, and occasion many disputes among you.” Well; allowing they do this, (which is utterly wrong) yet where is the contradiction? Yet they may love one another.

3. You “praise them for using no diversions, but such as become saints: and yet say (I recite the whole sentence) I have heard some of you affirm, that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good.”​――And both these are true. The Moravians, in general, “use no diversions but such as become saints.” And yet I have heard some of them affirm (in contradiction to their own practice) that “one then mentioned did well, when he joined in playing at tennis, in order to do good.” To this you make no reply. Silence then consents, that there is no contradiction here.

4. You “praise them for not regarding outward adorning.”​――So I do, the bulk of the congregation.​――And yet you say (I again recite the whole sentence) “I have heard some of you affirm, that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on gold and costly apparel.”​――I have so. And I blame them the more, because they are condemned by the general practice of their own church.​――To this also you reply not. So I must count this the fourth contradiction which you have charged upon me, but have not proved.

5. “You call their discipline, in most respects, truly excellent. I could wish you had more fully explained yourself.​――I have in the 2d journal, from the 44th to the 82d page.​――It is no sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations, (i. e. error in opinion, and guile in practice.)​――True; ’tis not; nor is it any demonstration against it. For there may be good discipline, even in a college of Jesuits. Another fault is, too great deference to the Count. And yet, in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.”

You reply, Such excellent discipline, for all that I know, they may have, [i. e. as the Jesuits;] but I cannot agree​――that this is scarce inferior to that of the apostolical age.​――It may be, for any thing you advance to the contrary.​――Here I cited some words of yours, condemning their subordination, (page 88.) which you prudently take no notice of.​――Yes; I had just before taken notice of their too great deference to the Count. But, the contradiction! Where is the contradiction?

6. “You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that every one knows and keeps his proper rank. Soon after, as it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.”​――I answered, “Pardon me, Sir, I have no design either to confute or contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the Moravian brethren. The latter of the English brethren of Fetter-lane (not then united with the Moravians, neither acting by their direction.)” To this likewise you do not reply. Here is then a sixth contradiction, alledged against me, but not proved.

12. However you add, Had you​――shewn me mistaken in any point you have attempted to reply to, still​――you confess errors and wickedness enough among the Moravians, to render your account of them very inconsistent. But you have not succeeded in any one answer. You have not shewn, that I have in any one instance misquoted you, or misunderstood the character you had given of them, or argued falsely from what you had said of them. And truly, Sir, all you have done, has been cavilling at a few particulars. But the argument I was urging all this while you quite forgot.

Sir, if it be so, you do me too much honour, in setting pen to paper again. But is it so? Have I all this while quite forgot the argument you was urging? I hope not. I seem to remember, you was urging some argument (Remarks, page 21.) to prove, that I fall not only into inconsistencies, but direct contradictions; and that I shewed you mistaken not only in one, but in every point which you advanced as such: that I did not confess any such errors or wickedness of the Moravians, as rendered my account of them self-inconsistent: that I succeeded in more than one answer, to the objections you had urged against it; and that I shewed, you had misquoted or misunderstood the character I had given of them, or argued falsely from it, not properly in one instance, but from the beginning to the end.

Yet this I think it ♦incumbent upon me to say, that whereinsoever I have contributed, directly or indirectly, to the spreading of any thing evil, which is, or has been, among the Moravians, I am sorry for it, and hereby ask pardon, both of God and all the world.

II. 1. I think it appears, by what you yourself observed, that on the second head, justification by faith, I allow, in the beginning of the Farther Appeal, almost as much as you contend for.

I desire leave to cite part of that passage again, that we may come as near each other as possible. I would just subjoin a few words on each head, which I hope may remove more difficulties out of the way.

“That justification whereof our articles and homilies speak, means present pardon, and acceptance with God: who therein declares his righteousness or mercy, by or for the remission of sins that are past.”

I say, past. For I cannot find any thing in the bible, of the remission of sins, past, present, and to come.

* “I believe the condition of this is faith: I mean not only, that without faith we cannot be justified, but also, that as soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.”

* You take the word condition in the former sense only, as that without which we cannot be justified. In this sense of the word, I think we may allow, that there are several conditions of justification.

* “Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less can sanctification; which implies a continued course of good works, springing from holiness of heart.”

* Yet such a course is without doubt absolutely necessary to our continuance in a state of justification.

“It is allowed, that repentance and fruits meet for repentance, go before faith. Repentance absolutely must go before faith: fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance I mean conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment: and by fruits meet for repentance, forgiving our brother, ceasing from evil, doing good, using the ordinances of God, and, in general, obeying him according to the measure of grace which we have received. But these I cannot as yet term good works, because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.” Although the same works are then good, when they are performed by those who have believed.

“Faith in general is, a divine supernatural ἔλεγχος, (evidence, or conviction) of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past, future or spiritual. Justifying faith implies, not only a divine ἔλεγχος, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, but a sure trust and confidence, that Christ died for my sins, that he loved me, and gave himself for me. And the moment a penitent sinner thus believes, God pardons and absolves him.”

I say, a penitent sinner; because justifying faith cannot exist without previous repentance.

――“Yet although both repentance, and the fruits thereof, are in some sense necessary before justification, neither the one nor the other is necessary in the same sense, or in the same degree with faith. Not in the same degree. For in whatever moment a man believes, (in the Christian sense of the word) he is justified.​――But it is not so, at whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any, or all the fruits of repentance.​――Consequently, none of these are necessary to justification, in the same degree with faith.”

“Nor in the same sense. For none of these has so direct, immediate a relation to justification as faith. This is proximately necessary thereto; repentance remotely, as it is necessary to faith (so the error of the press is to be corrected.) And the fruits of repentance still more remotely, as they are necessary to the increase, or continuance of repentance. And even in this sense, they are only necessary on supposition​――if there be time and opportunity for them. For in many instances there is not, but God cuts short his work, and faith prevents the fruits of repentance.”

2. Thus far I believe we are nearly agreed. But on those words, “Far other qualifications are required, in order to our standing before God in glory, than were required in order to his giving us faith and pardon: in order to this, nothing is indispensably required, but repentance or conviction of sin; but in order to the other, it is indispensably required, that we be fully cleansed from all sin:” you remark, Here, I apprehend, are two great mistakes, 1. You make too little necessary before pardon. 2. Too much afterward. You confine repentance within too narrow limits, and extend holiness beyond its just bounds. (page 92.)

First, By repentance you mean only conviction of sin. But this is a very partial account of it. Every child that has learned his catechism can tell, that forsaking of sin is also included in it.​――Living in obedience to God’s will, when there is opportunity; and even when there is not, a sincere desire and purpose to do so​――and a faith in God’s mercies through Christ Jesus.

I had said, “In order to God’s giving us faith and pardon, nothing is indispensably required but repentance,” i. e. “Conviction of sin producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment.” But you apprehend, that I am here in a great mistake: that I give a very partial account of repentance; that I ought to include therein a sincere desire and purpose to obey God.​――I do: I have said so expressly​――And living in obedience to God’s will, when there is opportunity.​――Very well; but I here speak of what is indispensably required, i. e. whether there is opportunity of actual obedience or no.​――And a faith in God’s mercies through Christ Jesus.​――A very great mistake indeed! My not including faith in that repentance, which I say is indispensably required​――in order to faith!

Secondly, You make sinless perfection necessary after justification, in order to make us meet for glory.​――And who does not? Indeed men do not agree in the time. Some believe it is attained before death: some, in the article of death: some, in an after-state; in the mystic, or the popish purgatory. But all writers, whom I have ever seen till now (the Romish themselves not excepted) agree, that we must be “fully cleansed from all sin,” before we can enter into glory.

3. After what has already been allowed, I cannot think it needful, to dispute farther, on the head of justification.​――Rather suffer me to close this part of our debate, by transcribing what I assent to, from that clear recapitulation of your sentiments, which you have given in your 45th and 46th pages.

“First, Justification is the act of God, pardoning our sins, and receiving us again to his favour. This was free in him, because undeserved by us; undeserved, because we had transgressed his law, and could not, nor even can now, perfectly fulfill it.”

2. “We cannot therefore be justified by our works, because this would be, to be justified by some merit of our own. Much less can we be justified by an external shew of religion, or by any superstitious observances.”

3. “The life and death of our Lord is the sole meritorious cause of this mercy, which must be firmly believed and trusted in by us. Our faith therefore in him, though not more meritorious than any other of our actions, yet has a nearer relation to the promises of pardon through him, and is the mean and instrument whereby we embrace and receive them.”

4. “True faith must be lively and productive of good works, which are its proper fruits, the marks whereby it is known.”

* 5. “Works really good, are such as are commanded by God (springing from faith) done by the aid of his holy Spirit, with good designs, and to good ends. These may be considered as internal or external.”

* 6. “The inward ones, such as hope, trust, fear, and love of God and our neighbour, (which may be more properly termed good dispositions and [are branches of] sanctification) must always be joined with faith, and consequently be conditions present in justification​――though they are not the means or instruments of receiving it.”

* 7. “The outward”​――(which are more properly termed good works) “though there be no immediate opportunity of practising them, and therefore a sincere desire and resolution to perform them, be sufficient for the present; yet must follow after as soon as occasion offers, and will then be necessary conditions of preserving our justification.”

* 8. “There is a justification conveyed to us in our baptism, or properly, this state is then begun. But​――should we fall into sins​――we cannot regain it without true faith and repentance, which implies (as its fruits) a forsaking of our sins, and amendment of (our whole) life.”

* I have only one circumstance farther to add, namely, That I am not newly convinced of these things. For this is the doctrine which I have continually taught for eight or nine years last past: only, I abstained from the word condition, perhaps more scrupulously than was needful.

4. With regard to the consequences of my teaching this doctrine, I desire any who will not account it lost labour, to consult with his own eyes, seriously and in the fear of God, the 3d and 4th journals. And if he pleases, he may farther read over and compare, from the 25th to the 29th page of my answer, with your reply, from the 101st (inclusive) to the 104th page.

Among the consequences you reckoned (in your Remarks) besides introducing predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair, many very shocking instances of all which (your words are) you give us among your followers​――pages 52, 55​――I answered, “You should have specified a few of those instances; at least the pages where they occur.” (Suppose, only three of each sort, out of any, or all the four journals) “Till this is done, I can look upon this assertion as no other than a flourish of your pen.”

Upon this you exclaim, (page 111.) I must beg the reader to observe your method of citing my words. Many instances of omissions he has had already. But here is such a one, as I believe few controversies can parallel.​――Would not any one imagine from the view of these words [Predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair] that they occurred all together in page 52, of my remarks, and that I observed nothing farther concerning this point? Could it be thought, that any thing intervened between the page referred to, and the last sentence? And yet so it is, that near three pages intervene!​――Ha! do near three pages intervene! Prodigious indeed!​――And this is called an answer!​――So it is, for want of a better.

Your business was to shew, that the calvinistical notions have not prevailed among the Methodists, or that they were no consequences of unconditioned justification.​――No, Sir, It was not my business to shew this. It was not my business to prove the negative; but yours, to prove the affirmative. Mr. Whitefield is himself a Calvinist. Such therefore doubtless are many of his followers. But Calvinism has not prevailed at all, among any other of the Methodists (so called,) nor is it to this day any consequence of unconditional justification, in the manner wherein I preach it.

5. You next take the pains to lay before the reader, an instance or two of confusion, &c. The first I read thus: page 11.

“While we were at the room, Mrs. J. sitting at home, took the bible to read. But on a sudden, threw it away, saying I am good enough. I will never read or pray more. She was in the same mind when I came; often repeating, I used to think, I was full of sin, and that I sinned in every thing I did. But now I know better. I am a good Christian. I never did any harm in my life. I do not desire to be any better than I am; she spake many things to the same effect, plainly shewing, that the spirit of pride and of lies had the full dominion over her.​――I asked, do you desire to be healed? She said, I am whole. But do you desire to be saved? She replied, I am saved, I ail nothing, I am happy.”​――This is one of the fruits of the present salvation and sinless perfection, taught by you among the weak and ignorant.

I should wonder if the scarecrow of sinless perfection was not brought in some way or other. But to the point. You here repeat a relation as from me, and that in confirmation, you say, of your own veracity, and yet leave out both the beginning of that relation, part of the middle, and the end of it.

I begin thus (4th Journal, page 66.) “Sunday 11. I met with a surprizing instance of the power of the devil.” These words, of all others, should not have been left out, being a key to all that follows. In the middle of the relation, immediately after the words, I am happy, I add, “Yet it was easy to discern, she was in the most violent agony both of body and mind: sweating exceedingly, notwithstanding the severest frost, and not continuing in the same posture a moment.” A plain proof, that this was no instance of presumption, nor a natural fruit of any teaching whatever.

It ends thus. “About a quarter before six the next morning, after lying quiet a while, she broke out, ‘Peace be unto thee, (her husband) peace be unto this house, the peace of God is come to my soul, I know that my Redeemer liveth.’ And for several days her mouth was filled with his praise, and her talk was wholly of his wondrous works.”​――Had not these words been left out, neither could this have past for an instance of despair.​――Though still I do not know but it might have stood for an instance of confusion, &c.

I must not forget, that this was cited at first, as a proof of my enthusiasm: as an instance of a private revelation, which (you say) I seem to pay great credit to​――representing the conjectures of a woman​――whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophesy. (Remarks page 64.) I answered, “Descant, Sir, as you please on this enthusiasm; on the credit paid to this private revelation; and my representing the conjectures of this brain-sick woman, as owing to a miraculous power of the spirit of prophecy”. And when you have done, I will desire you to read the passage once more; where you will find my express words are (introducing this account.) “Sunday 11. I met with a surprizing instance of the power of the devil.” Such was the credit I paid to this revelation! All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God is, the enabling her to strive against the power of the devil, and at length restoring peace to her soul. (Answer, page 41.)

I was in hopes, you had done with this instance. But I am disappointed. For in your 2d letter I read thus (page 130.)

The instances of enthusiasm and presumption, which your last journal had furnished me with, remain now to be reviewed. The first was, of a private revelation, which you appeared to pay great credit to. You had represented every thing the woman had spoke in her agony as coming to pass.​――But I had not represented any thing she spoke then, whether it came to pass or no, as coming from the Spirit of God, but from the devil.

You say, When I read this first, I was amazed, and​――impatient to look again into your journal. But I had no sooner done this, but I was still more astonished. For you have very grievously misrepresented the case​――If I have, then I will bear the blame; but if not, it will light on your head.

It is not this account which you had thus introduced; but another, and a very different one, of what happened a day or two before. Sunday, you mention her as being guilty of gross presumption,​――which you attribute to the power of the devil. But on Monday and Tuesday the opposite revelations happened, which​――you relate without the least mark of diffidence or blame. (page 131)

I am grieved that you constrain me to say any more. In the 66th and 67th page of the last journal, I gave an account of Mrs. Jones, which I term, “a surprizing instance of the power of the devil.” It includes the occurrences of three days. This you brought as a proof of my enthusiasm. I answer, “the very words that introduce this account,” prove it is no instance of enthusiasm: meaning by this account (as I suppose is plain to every reader,) the following account of Mrs. Jones. You reply. It is not this account, which you had thus introduced, but another, and a very different one, of what happened a day or two before. Sir, it is the whole account of Mrs. Jones which I thus introduce; and not another; not a very different one. And I attribute the agony which she (Mrs. Jones) was in; and most of the words which she spoke, both on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, not to the Spirit of God, but to the power of the devil.

6. The next instance, which you relate as an instance of despair, is that of a young woman of Kingswood; which you break off with, “Take me away,” &c. (page 112.) But why did you not decypher that, &c. Why did you not add the rest of the paragraph? Because it would have spoiled your whole argument. It would have shewn what the end of the Lord was, in permitting that severe visitation. The words are, (Journal 3, page 93.) “We interrupted her by calling again upon God, on which she sunk down as before (as one asleep) and another young woman began to roar as loud as she had done. My brother now came in, it being about nine o’clock. We continued in prayer till past eleven: when God in a moment spoke peace into the soul, first, of the first tormented, and then of the other. And they both joined in singing praises to him, who had stilled the enemy and the avenger.”

7. I am sorry to find you still affirm, that with regard to the Lord’s supper also, I advance many injudicious, false and dangerous things. Such as, 1. That “a man ought to communicate, without a sure trust in God’s mercy through Christ, (page 117.)” You make these as my words; but I know them not.​――2. “That there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever God pleases to give.”​――But I include abundantly more in that desire, than you seem to apprehend; even a willingness to know and do the will of God.​――3. “That no fitness is required at the time of communicating, (I recite the whole sentence) but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness! Every one who knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this, as well as in all other ways of his appointment.”​――But neither can this sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness subsist, without earnest desires of universal holiness.​――There was another passage (you say) which you chose to omit. (page 118.) Which this was, I do not understand. Nor do I perceive any one of these dreadful positions (as you stile them) to be contrary to the word of God.

8. You will likewise at all hazards stand your ground, as to the charge of stoical insensibility. I answered before, (page 36.) How do you support the charge? Why thus,​――You say, the servants of God suffer nothing.​――And can you possibly misunderstand these words, if you read those that immediately follow? “His body was well nigh torn asunder with pain. But God made all his bed in his sickness. So that he was continually giving thanks to God, and making his boast of his praise.”

You reply, (118) If you meant no more than that a man under the sharpest pains, may be thankful to God, why did you call this a strange truth?​――Because I think it is so. I think it exceeding strange, that one in such a degree of pain, should be continually giving thanks to God. Not that I suppose him insensible of his torments. “His body, I say, was well nigh torn asunder with pain.” But the love of God so abundantly overbalanced all pain, that it was nothing to him.

The next instance is as follows. One told you, Sir, I thought last week there could be no such rest as you describe; none in this world wherein we should be so free, as not to desire ease in pain. But God has taught me better. For on Friday and Saturday, when I was in the strongest pain, I never once had one moment’s desire of ease (add, “but only that the will of God might be done.”)

Neither has this any resemblance of stoical insensibility. I never supposed, that this person did not feel pain: (nor indeed that there is any state on earth, wherein we shall not feel it.) But that her soul was filled with the love of God, and thankfully resigned to his will.

Another instance is taken from one of your hymns where are these lines: (page 119.)

“Doom if thou canst, to endless pains,

And drive me from thy face:” (add,

But if thy stronger love constrains,

Let me be sav’d by grace.)

This I thought the height of insensibility, extravagance and presumption.​――You see nothing of these in it. And yet you explain yourself thus, “If thou canst deny thyself, if thou canst forget to be gracious, if thou canst cease to be truth and love.” All which in my opinion, is fixing the charge most strongly upon you. For the supposition that Christ can do these things​――Are you in earnest, Sir? Are you really ignorant, that expressions of this kind, do not suppose he can, but quite the reverse? That they are one of the strongest forms of obtestation, of adjuring God to shew mercy, by all his grace, and truth, and love? So far is this also from proving the charge of stoical insensibility.

III. 1. I come now to consider the point of church-communion, of which you have spoke in the beginning of your treatise. In the entrance you say, We teach no other doctrine than has always been taught in our church.​――Our sentiments concerning justification are reconcileable to our articles, homilies and service.​――This I apprehend several of the Methodists have been convinced of, and have therefore left our communion entirely.​――You give us more instances than one of this in your last journal.​――(page 2.) No, not one. Nor did I ever yet know one man, who therefore left the communion of the church, because he was convinced that either her articles, homilies or liturgy opposed his sentiments concerning justification. Poor Mr. St. and Mr. Simpson were induced to leave it, by reasons of quite another kind.

You add, We cannot wonder, that some Methodists, have withdrawn from her,​――while they have been used to hear doctrines, which they must have been sensible, have no place in her articles and service.​――So far from it, that all I know of them are deeply sensible, the doctrines they have been used to hear daily, are no other than the genuine doctrines of the church, as exprest both in her articles and service.

2. But our present question turns not on doctrine but discipline.​――My first business (you say) is to consider, some very lax notions of church-communion, which I find in your last journal. Page 26, you say, “Our 20th article defines a true church, a congregation of faithful people, wherein the true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered​――(page 3.) The use I would willingly make of this definition, (which, observe, is not mine, be it good or bad) is to stop the boasting of ungodly men, by cutting off their pretence to call themselves, of the church. But you think, they may call themselves so still. Then let them. I will not contend about it.

But you cannot infer from hence, that my notions of church communion are either lax or otherwise. The definition which I occasionally cite, shews nothing of my sentiments on that head. And for any thing which occurs in this page, they may be strict or loose, right or wrong.

You add, It will be requisite, (page 5.) in order to approve yourself a minister of our church, that you follow her rules and orders.​――That you constantly conform to the method of worship she has prescribed, and study to promote her peace. All this is good and fit to be done. But it properly belongs to the following question.

What led you into such loose notions of church-communion, I imagine, might be, your being conscious to yourself, that according to the strict, just account of the church of England, you could not with any grace maintain your pretensions to belong still to her.​――Sir, I have never told you yet, what my notions of the church-communion are. They may be wrong, or they may be right, for all you know. Therefore, when you are first supposing that I have told you my notions, and then assigning the reasons of them, what can be said, but that you imagine the whole matter?

3. How far I have acted agreeably to the rules and orders of our church, is a farther question. You think I have acted contrary thereto, first, By using extemporary prayer in public. The church, you say, has strongly declared her mind on this point, by appointing her excellent liturgy, which you have solemnly promised to use​――and no other.​――I know not when or where.​――And whoever​――does not worship God in the manner she prescribes​――must be supposed to slight and contemn her offices and rules: and therefore can be no more worthy to be called her minister. (page 7.)

I do not slight or contemn the offices of the church. I esteem them very highly. And yet I do not, at all times, worship God, even in public, in the very terms of those offices. Nor yet do I knowingly slight or contemn her rules. For it is not clear to my apprehension, that she has any rule which forbids using extemporary prayer, suppose between the morning and evening service. And if I am not worthy to be called her minister (which I dare by no means affirm myself to be) yet her minister I am, and must always be, unless I should be judicially deposed from my ministry.

Your second argument is this. “If you suppose the scripture enjoins you to use extemporary prayer, then you must suppose our liturgy to be inconsistent with scripture, and consequently unlawful to be used.” That does not follow: unless I supposed the scripture to enjoin, to use extemporary prayer, and no other. Then it would follow, that a form of prayer was inconsistent with scripture. But this I never did suppose.

Your third argument is to this effect; “You act contrary to the rule of the church. Allow she in the wrong: yet while you break her rule, how do you act as her minister?” It ought to be expressed, how are you her minister? For the conclusion to be proved is, That I am not her minister.

I answer, 1. I am not convinced, as I observed before, that I do hereby break her rule. 2. If I did, yet should I not cease to be her minister, unless I were formally deprived. 3. I now actually do continue in her communion, and hope that I always shall.

4. You object farther, “That I disobey the governors of the church.” I answer, I both do, and will obey them in all things, where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary.​――Here, you say, you confess that in some things you do not, and cannot obey your governors (page 8.)​――Did I confess this? Then I spoke rashly and foolishly: for I granted more than I can make good.​――I do certainly apprehend, that the law of God requires me, both to preach and (sometimes) to pray extempore. Yet I do not know that I disobey the governors of the church herein. For I do not know, that they have forbidden me to do either.

But your ♦behaviour and method of teaching is irregular.​――Have you any warrant from scripture for preaching up and down thus?​――I think I have: I think God hath called me to this work by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, which directs me how to obey that general command, While we have time, let us do good unto all men.

But we ought to do this agreeably to our respective situations, and not break in upon each other’s provinces.​――Every private man may take upon himself the office of a magistrate​――and quote this text as justly as you have done, (page 9.) No. The private man is not called to the office of a magistrate; but I am to the office of a preacher.​――You was indeed authorized to preach the gospel: but it was in the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed.​――Whereas you have many years preached in places whereunto you was not lawfully appointed; nay, which were intrusted to others, who neither wanted nor desired your assistance.

Many of them wanted it enough, whether they desired it or no. But I shall not now debate that point. I rather follow you to the ♦Part of the Farther Appeal, where this objection is considered.

5. “Our church (it was said) has provided against this preaching up and down, in the ordination of a priest, by expresly limiting the exercise of the powers then conferred upon him, to the congregation where he shall be lawfully ♦appointed thereunto.”

I answered, 1. “Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just as you propose it, it proves, that no priest has authority either to preach or administer the sacrament in any other than his own congregation.” Farther Appeal, page 84.

You reply, Is there no difference between a thing’s being done occasionally​――and its being done for years together?​――Yes a great one. And more inconveniencies may arise from the latter than from the former. But this is all wide: it does not touch the point. Still if our church does expresly limit the exercise of the sacerdotal powers, to that congregation whereunto each priest shall be appointed; this precludes him from exercising those powers at all, in any other than that congregation.

I answered, 2. “Had the powers conferred been so limited when I was ordained priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was not appointed to any congregation at all: but was ordained as a member of that ‘college of divines,’ (so our statutes express it) ‘founded to overturn all heresies, and defend the catholic faith.’”

You reply, “I presume it was expected you should either continue at your college, or enter upon some regular cure.”​――Perhaps so; but I must still insist, that if my sacerdotal powers had been then expresly limited to that congregation whereunto I should be appointed, my ordination would have signified nothing. I mean, I could never, in virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all: seeing I never was appointed to any single congregation: at least, not till I went to Georgia.

I answered, 3. “For many years after I was ordained priest, this limitation was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection to my preaching up and down, in Oxford or London, or the parts adjacent: in Glocestershire or Worcestershire: in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or Lincolnshire. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.”

You reply, There is great difference between preaching occasionally​――with the leave of the incumbent, and doing it constantly without their leave. I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter, which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this head. They do not in the least affect this consequence, “If every priest, when ordained, is expresly limited, touching the exercise of the power then received, to that congregation to which he shall be appointed; then is he precluded by this express limitation, from preaching, with or without the incumbent’s leave, in any other congregation whatever.”

I answered, 4. “Is it not, in fact, universally allowed, that every priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, to preach​――in any congregation, where the curate desires his assistance?”

You reply to this by what you judge a ♦parallel case. But it does not touch the restriction in question. Either this does, or does not expresly limit the exercise of the powers conferred upon a priest in his ordination, to that congregation whereunto he shall be appointed. If it does not, I am not condemned by this; however faulty I may be on a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every priest condemned who ever preaches out of the congregation to which he is appointed.

Your parallel case is this​――Because a man does not offend against the law of the land, when I prevail upon him to teach my children.​――Therefore he is impowered to seize (read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing) an apartment in my house, and against my will and approbation to continue therein, and to direct and dictate to my family! page 11.

An exact parallel indeed!​――When therefore I came to live in St. Luke’s parish, was it just the same thing as if I had seized an apartment in Dr. Buckley’s house? And was the continuing therein against his will and approbation (supposing it were so) precisely the same, as if I had continued in his house, whether he would or no? Is the one exactly the same offence against the law of the land as the other? Once more. Is the warning sinners in Moorfields, to flee from the wrath to come, the very same with directing the Dr.’s family, under his own roof?​――I should not have answered this, but that I was afraid you would conclude, it was unanswerable.

I answered the former objector, 5. “Before those words which you suppose to imply such a restraint​――were those spoken without any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an indelible character, receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands.”

You reply, The question is not, whether you are in orders, or not? page 12.​――I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was.​――But whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the church of England.​――Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly to be interpreted, of preaching only in a single congregation. But I have given my reasons, why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated.

I would only add, If I am in orders, if I am a minister still, and yet not a minister of the church of England, of what church am I a minister? Whoever is a minister at all, is a minister of some particular church. Neither can he cease to be a minister of that church, till he is cast out of it by a judicial sentence. Till therefore I am so cast out (which I trust will never be) I must stile myself, a minister of the church of England.

6. Your next objection is, You not only erect bands, which, after the Moravians, you call the united society, but also give out tickets to those that continue therein.​――These bands, you think, have had very bad consequences​――as was to be expected​――when weak people​――are made leaders​――of their brethren, and are set upon expounding scripture.​――Ibid.

You are in some mistakes here. For, 1. The bands are not called the united society. 2. The united society was originally so called, not after the Moravians, but because it consisted of several smaller societies united together. 3. Neither the bands, nor the leaders of them, as such, are set upon expounding scripture. 4. The good consequences of their meeting together in bands, I know: but the very bad consequences I know not.

When any members of these, or of the united society, are proved to live in known sin, we then mark and avoid them; we separate ourselves from every one that walks disorderly. Sometimes, if the case be judged infectious (though rarely) this is openly declared. And this you stile excommunication, and say, Does not every one see a separate ecclesiastical society or communion? page 13.​――No. This society does not separate from the communion of the rest of the church of England. They continue stedfastly with them, both in the apostolical doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers (which neither Mr. St. nor Mr. Si. does: nor the gentleman who writes to you in favour of the Moravians: who also writes pressingly to me, to separate myself from the church) a society over which you had appointed yourself a governor.​――No; so far as I governed them, it was at their own intreaty.​――And took upon you all the spiritual authority, which the very highest church governor could claim.​――What! at Kingswood? In February 1740‒1? Not so. I took upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any steward of a society exerts by the consent of the other members. I did neither more nor less than declare, that they who had broken our rules, were no longer of our society.

Can you pretend that you received this authority from our church?​――Not by ordination; for I did not exert it as a priest: but as one whom that society had voluntarily chosen to be at the head of them.​――Or that you exercised it in subjection, or subordination to her lawful governors?​――I think so; I am sure I did not exercise it in any designed opposition to them.​――Did you ever think proper to consult or advise with them, about fixing the terms of your communion?​――If you mean, about fixing the rules of admitting or excluding from our society: I never did think it either needful or proper. Nor do I, at this day.

How then will you vindicate all these powers?​――All these are, “Declaring those are no longer of our society.” Here is a manifest congregation. Either it belonged to the church of England, or not.​――If it did not​――you set up a separate communion against her. And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from her?​――I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false. Therefore the consequent falls of course.​――If it did belong to the church, shew where the church gave you such authority of controuling and regulating it?​――Authority of putting disorderly members out of that society? The society itself gave me that authority. What private clergyman can plead her commission, to be thus a judge and ordinary, even in his own parish?​――Any clergyman or layman, without pleading her commission, may be thus a judge and ordinary. Are not these powers inherent in her governors, and committed to the higher order of her clergy?​――No; not the power of excluding members from a private society,​――unless on supposition of some such rule as ours is, viz. “That if any man separate from the church, he is no longer a member of our society.”

7. But you have more proof yet. The grand jury in Georgia found, that you had called yourself ordinary of Savannah. Nor was this fact contradicted even by those of the jury, who you say wrote in your favour. So that it appears, you have long had an inclination, to be independent and uncontrouled.​――This argument ought to be good; for it is far fetched. The plain case was this. That grand jury did assert, “That in Mr. Causton’s hearing, I had called myself ordinary of Savannah.” The minority of the jury, in their letter to the trustees, refuted the other allegations particularly: but thought this so idle an one, that they did not deign to give it any farther reply, than

“As to the eighth bill we are in doubt, as not well knowing the meaning of the word ordinary.” See 1 Journal, pages 47, 49.

You add, I appeal to any reasonable man, whether you have not acted as an ordinary; nay, a bishop in Kingswood.​――If you mean, in “declaring those disorderly members were no longer of that society.” I admit your appeal, whether I therein acted as a bishop, or as any steward of a society may. Nay, you have gone far beyond the generality of the dissenters themselves; who do not commit the power of excommunication (and ♦appointing to preach​――that is another question) to the hands of any private minister.​――The powers of excommunication.​――True; but this was not excommunication, but a quite different thing.

How far, in what circumstances, and in what sense, I have appointed men to preach, I have explained at large in the third part of the Farther Appeal. But I wait for farther light; and am ready to consider, as I am able, whatever shall be replied to what is there advanced.

8. Your general conclusion is, Whatever your pretences or professions may be, you can be looked upon by serious and impartial persons, (not as a member, much less a minister of the church of England,) but as no other than an enemy to her constitution, worship and doctrine, raising divisions and disturbances in her communion, (page 76.)​――And yet you say​――“I cannot have greater regard to her rules”​――“I dare not renounce communion with her.” (page 15.)

* I do say so still. I cannot have a greater regard to any human rules, than to follow them in all things, unless where I apprehend there is a divine rule to the contrary. I dare not renounce communion with the church of England. As a minister, I teach her doctrines. I use her offices. I conform to her rubricks. I suffer reproach for my attachment to her. As a private member I hold her doctrines. I join in her offices, in prayer, in hearing, in communicating. I expect every reasonable man, touching these facts, to believe his own eyes and ears.​――But if these facts are so, how dare any man of common sense, charge me with renouncing the church of England?

9. Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of this matter is, 1. I often use extemporary prayer. 2. Wherever I can, I preach the gospel. 3. Those who desire to live the gospel I advise how to watch over each other, and to put from them such as walk disorderly. Now whether these things are, on other considerations, right or wrong, this single point I must still insist on; “All this does not prove, either that I am no member, or that I am no minister of the church of England.” Nay, nothing can prove, I am no member of the church, till I either am excommunicated, or renounce her communion, and no longer join in her doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer. Nor can any thing prove, I am no minister of the church, till I either am deposed from my ministry, or voluntarily renounce her, and wholly cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her rubricks for conscience sake.

However I grant, that whatsoever is urged on this head, deserves my most serious consideration. And whensoever I am convinced, that by taking any methods, more or less different from those I now take, I may better consult the honour of religion, and be able to do more good in the world; by the grace of God, I shall not persist in these one hour, but instantly chuse the more excellent way.

IV. 1. What you urge on the head of enthusiasm also, I think deserves my most serious consideration. (You may add, and presumption. I let it drop once more; because I do not love tautology; and because I look upon presumption to be ♦essential to enthusiasm, and consequently contained therein.) I will therefore weigh what you advance concerning it, and explain myself something more at large.

I am to examine, you say, (page 120.) How far you have cleared yourself of enthusiasm. My account of this you set down, making as many alterations and omissions as there are lines​――Perhaps more; for I never designed to recite the whole, but only the material part of it. If you did not wholly approve of it, why would you not let me know, what you disliked in it?​――Because I do not love many words. Therefore when the argument stood thus: “He that does this is an enthusiast: but you do this:” I was generally content with answering the 2d proposition, and leaving the first as I found it.

I laid this charge against you and the Methodists in general: between you every part of the character has been verified.​――I answer for one; let the rest answer for themselves,​――if they have not better employment.

That the question between us may be the more fully understood, I shall briefly compare together, 1. Your remarks. 2. My answer. 3. Your reply: though still I cannot promise to repeat your words at length.

2. You remark (page 60.) Though you would be thought an enemy to enthusiasm and presumption,​――yet in both you are far from being inferior to the Moravians, or indeed to any others: [strong assertions! not inferior to any others? Not to the French prophets, or John of Leyden?] 1. Enthusiasm is, a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men to such conduct, as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance. I answer, (page 38.) “Before this touches me, you are to prove (which I conceive you have not done yet) that my conduct is such, as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance.” You reply (page 120.) This, I think, is proved in the preceding tract.​――I think not. Let men of candour judge.​――Yet I am persuaded, there was such an assistance at some times. You have also to prove, that this was a false persuasion.

You remark, 2. An enthusiast is then sincere, but mistaken. (page 61.) I answered, “That I am mistaken, remains to be proved.” You reply, The world must judge. Agreed, if by the world you mean, men of reason and religion.

You remark, 3. His intentions must be good: but his actions will be most abominable. I answered,​――“What actions of mine are most abominable?” You reply, The world must be judge, whether your public actions have not been​――in many respects abominable. I am glad the charge softens. I hope by and by you will think they are only abominable in some respects.

You remark 4. Instead of making the word of God​――the rule of his actions, he follows only secret persuasion or impulse.​――I answered, “I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the rule of all my actions, and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof, than I follow Mahomet or Confucius.” You reply (page 121.) You fall again into your strain of boasting, as if declarations could have any weight against facts; assert, that “you make the word of God the rule of all your actions,” and that I “perhaps do not know many persons.”​――Stop, Sir. You are stepping over one or two points, which I have not done with.

You remark, 5. Instead of judging of his spiritual estate, by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on extasies, &c.​――I answered, “Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. I judge of my spiritual estate, by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my life conjointly.” To this I do not perceive you reply one word. Herein then I am not an enthusiast.

You remark, 6. He is very liable to err​――not considering things coolly and carefully. I answered, “So indeed I am: I find it every day more and more. But I do not yet find, that this is owing to my want of considering things coolly and carefully. Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take (page 39.) Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants!” You reply, Your private life I have nothing to do with: and then enlarge on my method of consulting scripture, and of using lots: of both which by and by. But mean time, observe this does not affect the question. for I neither cast lots, nor use that method at all, till I have considered things with all the care I can. So that, be this right or wrong, it is no manner of proof, that I do not “carefully consider every step I take.”

But how little did I profit by begging your excuse, suppose I had spoken a word unguardedly? O Sir, you put me in mind of him who said, “I know not to shew mercy!” You have need never to fight, but when you are sure to conquer: seeing you are resolved neither to give nor take quarter.

You remark, 7. He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the direction of God’s Spirit. I answered, “I am very difficult to be convinced by dry blows or hard names.​――But not, by reason or argument. At least that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention. For I claim no other direction of God’s Spirit than is common to all believers.”

You reply (page 124) 1.​――I fear this will not be easily reconcileable to your past pretences and behaviour. I believe it will; in particular to what I speak of the light I received from God in that important affair. (1 journal page 37.) But as to the directions, in general of the Spirit of God, we very probably differ in this; you apprehend those directions to be extraordinary, which I suppose to be common to all believers.

You remark, 8. Whoever opposes him will be charged with resisting or rejecting the Spirit. I answered, “What! Whoever opposes me, John Wesley?​――Do I charge every such person with rejecting the Spirit? No more than I charge him with robbing on the highway.​――Do I charge you with rejecting the Spirit?” You reply, You deny that you charge the opposers with rejecting the Spirit, and affirm, that you never said or thought, that what you do is to be accounted the work of God. Here you blend different sentences together, which I must consider apart, as they were written. And first, where do I charge you with rejecting the Spirit? If I charge whoever opposes me with this, undoubtedly I charge you. If I do not charge you, that proposition is false; I do not so charge whoever opposes me. Your next words are, You affirm that you never said or thought, that what you do is ♦to be accounted the work of God.​――If it be the work of God, you need not deny the other point.​――Yes, Sir: whether it be or no, I must still deny, that I ever charged you with rejecting the Spirit in opposing me.

You remark, 9. His own dreams must be regarded as oracles.​――I answered, “Whose? I desire neither my dreams nor my waking thoughts, may be regarded at all, unless just so far as they agree with the oracles of God.” To this also you make no reply.

You remark, 10. However wild​――his behaviour may be, whatever he​――does, is to be accounted the work of God. It was to this I answered, “I never said so of what I do: I never thought so.” This answer was ill expressed. And I might have foreseen, you would hardly fail, to make your advantage of it. I must therefore explain myself upon it a little farther. You said, “An enthusiast accounts whatever he does to be the work of God.” I should have said, “but I do not account whatever I do to be the work of God.” What that is, which I do account his work, will be considered by and by.

You remark, 11. He talks in the stile of inspired persons. I answered, “No otherwise inspired, than you are, if you love God.” You reply, (page 126.) The point was not, whether you are actually inspired, but whether you have talked in the stile of those who were so. That was so much the point, that if it were allowed, it would overturn your whole argument. For if I was inspired (in your sense) you could not term that inspiration enthusiasm without blasphemy: but you again mistake my words. The plain meaning of them is, that I talk in the stile of those persons, who are “no otherwise inspired than you are, if you love God.”

You remark, 12. He applies scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference of times and circumstances. (page 62.) I answered, “I am not conscious of any thing like this. I apply no scripture phrase (page 39) either to myself or any other, without carefully considering both the original meaning, and the secondary sense, wherein, allowing for different times and circumstances, it may be applied to ordinary Christians.” You reply, This also you deny to have done; holding however some secondary sense, (what it is you have not told us) in which scripture phrases may​――be applied to ordinary Christians. I have largely told you, what I mean by, a secondary sense, in the first part of the Farther Appeal. You add, (page 126.) many things which were truly written of the preaching of Christianity at first, you have vainly applied to yourselves. Sir, I am to answer only for myself: as I will for that expression, Behold the day of the Lord is come; he is again visiting and redeeming his people!

3. I come now to what you expatiate upon at large, as the two grand instances of enthusiasm. The first is plainly this. * At some rare times, when I have been in great distress of soul, or in utter uncertainty how to act, in an important case, which required a speedy determination: after using all other means that occurred, I have casts lots, or opened the bible. And by this means I have been relieved from that distress, or directed in that uncertainty.

Instances of this kind occur in the 12. 14. 15. 28. and 88th pages of the third journal: as also in the 27. 28. and 80th page of the last journal. I desire any who would understand this matter throughly, to read those passages as they stand at length.

As to the particular instances, I would observe, 1. That with regard to my first journey to Bristol, you should in any wise have set down those words, that preface the scriptures there recited. “I was intreated, in the most pressing manner, to come to Bristol without delay. This I was not at all forward to do: and perhaps a little the less inclined to it​――because of the remarkable scriptures which offered, as often as we enquired touching the consequence of this removal: though whether this was permitted only for the trial of our faith, God knoweth, and the event will shew.”​――From the scriptures afterwards recited, some inferred, that the event, they apprehended, was yet afar off.​――I infer nothing at all. I still know not how to judge; but leave the whole to God.​――* This only I know, that the continual expectation of death, was then an unspeakable blessing to me: that I did not dare, knowingly, to waste a moment, neither to throw away one desire on earthly things: those words being ever uppermost in my thoughts, and indeed frequently on my tongue,

E’er long, when sov’reign wisdom wills

My soul an unknown path shall tread,

Shall strangely leave, who strangely fills

This frame, and waft me to the dead.

O what is death? ’Tis life’s last shore,

Where vanities are vain no more:

Where all pursuits their goal obtain,

And life is all re-touch’d again.――

I observe, 2. That in two other of those instances, (3 journal pages 12 and 14.) it is particularly mentioned, that “I was troubled;” and that by the seasonable application of those scriptures, that trouble was entirely removed. The same blessing I received (so I must term it still) from the words set down in the 88th page: and in a yet higher degree, from that exceeding, ♦apposite scripture mentioned in the 80th page of the last journal.

I observe, 3. That at the times to which your other citations refer, I was utterly uncertain how to act, in points of great importance, and such as required a speedy determination: and that by this means my uncertainty was removed, and I went on my way rejoicing, Journal 3. pages 12, 15. Journal 4. pages 27, 28.

My own experience therefore, which you think should discourage me for the future from any thing of this kind, does on the contrary greatly encourage me herein; since I have found much benefit, and no inconvenience: unless perhaps this be one, that you cannot acquit me of enthusiasm: add, if you please, and presumption.

But you ask, Has God ever commanded us to do thus? I believe he has neither commanded nor forbidden it in scripture. But then remember, That scripture (to use the words which you cite, from our learned and judicious Hooker) is not the only rule of all things, which in this life, may be done by men​――All I affirm concerning this, is, That it may be done; and that I have in fact, received assistance and direction thereby.

4. I give the same answer to your assertion, (page 123.) that we are not ordered in scripture to decide any point in question by lots. You allow indeed, there are instances of this in scripture; but affirm, these were miraculous: nor can we without presumption (a species of enthusiasm) apply this method. I want proof of this: bring one plain text of scripture, and I am satisfied.​――This, I apprehend, you learned from the Moravians​――I did; though ’tis true, Mr. Whitefield thought I went too far therein.​――Instances of the same occur in your journals. I will mention only one. It being debated when you should go to Bristol, you say, “We at length all agreed, to decide it by lot. And by this it was determined, I should go.” (Journal 3, page 28.) Is this your way of carefully considering every step you take? Can there be greater rashness and extravagance? Reason is thus in a manner rendered useless: prudence is set aside, and affairs of moment left to be determined by chance! page 124.

So this you give as a genuine instance of my proceedings​――And, I suppose, of your own fairness and candour! “We agreed at length, to decide it by lot.” True; at length: after a debate of some hours; after carefully hearing and weighing coolly, all the reasons which could be alledged on either side; “Our brethren still continuing the dispute, without any probability of their coming to one conclusion, we at length (the night being now far spent) all agreed to this.” Can there be greater rashness and extravagance?​――I cannot but think there can. Reason is thus in a manner rendered useless. No: we had used it as far as it could go: from Saturday, March 17, (when I received the first letter) to Wednesday 28, when the case was laid before the society. Prudence is set aside: Not so; but the arguments here were so equal, that she saw not how to determine:​――And affairs of moment left to be determined by chance! By chance? What a blunder then is that, The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposal thereof is of the Lord!

* This I firmly believe is truth and reason, and will be to the end of the world. And I therefore still subscribe to that declaration of the Moravian church (laid before the whole body of divines in the university of Wirtemberg, and not by them accounted enthusiasm) “We have a peculiar esteem for lots, and accordingly use them both in public and private, to decide points of importance, when the reasons brought on each side, appear to be of equal weight. And we believe this to be then the only way, of wholly setting aside our own will, of acquitting ourselves of all blame, and clearly knowing what is the will of God.” Journal 2, page 81.

5. You next remarked several instances of my enthusiasm. The first was, That of Mrs. Jones. The next ran thus. Again, you say, “I expounded out of the fulness that was given me.” (page 64.) I answered, “I mean, I had then a fuller, deeper sense (of what I spoke) than I ordinarily have.” (page 41.) But if you still think, It would have been more decent to have said, according to the best of my power and ability, with God’s assistance, I expounded; I will say so another time.

With regard to the third instance of enthusiasm, you remarked, If you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing in it worthy of being related, page 64.​――I answered, “It may be so. Let it pass then as a trifle not worth relating; but still it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as miraculous​――But as a signal instance of God’s particular providence, page 42.” How friendly and generous is your reply! You seem ashamed of it​――I am glad you give this fooling up, and hope for the future, you will treat your readers better. (page 131.) Sir, I am not ashamed of it; nor shall I ever give this fooling up, till I give up the bible. I still look upon this “as a signal instance of God’s particular providence”​――But how is this consistent with yielding it to be a trifle? (page 132.) My words do not imply, that I yield it so to be. Being urged with the dilemma, “Either this is related as miraculous, (and then it is enthusiasm) or it is not worth relating:” I answered (to avoid drawing the saw of controversy) “Let it pass then as a trifle not worth relating. But still, (if it be a trifle, which I suppose, not grant) it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as miraculous.”