A LETTER To the RIGHT REVEREND The Bishop of London, &c.

THE Apostle Peter exhorts us, to be ready to give an Answer to every one that asketh us a Reason of the Hope that is in us, with Meekness and Fear. And if this is to be our Conduct towards every one, much more are we bound to behave thus to those who are Overseers of the Church of God, and consequently are invested with an Authority to require an Answer at our Hands.

A Desire of complying with this Apostolical Injunction, induced me, my Lords, about five Weeks ago to publish an ^* Advertisement, wherein I desired an open Publication of several anonymous Papers, entitled, Observa­tions upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect, usually distinguished by the Name of Methodists.— Papers which, upon Enquiry, I found had been printed some considerable Time, had been read in the Societies of London and Westminster, and handed about in a private Manner to particular Friends, with strict Orders to part with them to no one.— What could be the meaning of such a Procedure, I know not.—But this I know, however [Page 4] such a clandestine way of acting, may savour of the Wisdom of the Ser­pent, it does not bespeak that Harmlesness of the Dove, which our Saviour in an especial Manner recommends to his Ministers.

Who the real Author of these Papers may be, I am not yet able for a Certainty to find out.—But I had Reason to believe, that my Lord of London was concerned in composing or revising them.—That I might not be mistaken, after the Publication of the Advertisement, I wrote his Lord­ship a Letter ^*, wherein I desired to know, whether his Lordship was the Author of this Paper or not, and also desired a Copy.—His Lordship was pleased to send Word by my Friend, who carried the Letter, that ‘ I should hear from him.’ —Hitherto his Lordship has not favoured me with an Answer.—Only some Time ago, one Mr. Owen, a Printer, in Amen-Corner, Pater-noster-Row, who is Printer to my Lord of London, left a Letter ^* for me, wherein he informed me, that he had Orders from SEVERAL OF THE BISHOPS to print the Observations en the Conduct and Behaviour of the Me­thodists (WITH SOME FEW ADDITIONS) for their use; and when the Im­pression was finished, I should have a Copy.— Why my Lord of London, or the several other Bishops concerned, should conceal their Names, or why a Copy should be denied me, so long after the Papers had been printed, I leave the World to judge. I cannot think such a way of Proceeding can gain your Lordships any Credit from the Publick, or any Thanks from the [Page 5] other Bishops who have not interested themselves in this Affair, and who, I believe, are more noble, than to countenance the Publication of any such Performance.

It is a weighty Thing with me, my Lords, to have Insinuations made, or Queries put concerning me, in respect to my Practice and Doctrine, in such a Public Manner, by Persons that are placed at the Head of the Church.—It is true, your Lordships have not put these Queries in your own Names; but as the Author has concealed his, and these Papers are printed by your Lordships Orders, you have thereby adopted them for your own; consequently, I am put under a Necessity of directing this Letter as I have done. And I can assure your Lordships, that with great Deference to the Dignity of your Office, after earnest Prayer, with I trust some De­gree of Humility, and unfeigned Simplicity of Heart, I now sit down to perform my Promise, viz. to give a Candid and Impartial Answer to the fore-mentioned Papers, which were sent me last Week, (collected into a Pamphlet) by Mr. Owen; I suppose, according to your Lordships Order.

I never yet was, and hope never shall be so far left to lean to my own Understanding, as to fancy myself infallible.—Young as I am, I know too much of the Devices of Satan, and the desperate Wickedness and Deceit­fulness of my own Heart, not to be sensible, that I am a Man of like Pas­sions with others, and consequently may have sometimes mistaken Nature for Grace, Imagination for Revelation, and the Fire of my own Temper, for the pure and sacred Flame of holy Zeal, which cometh from God's Al­ter. —If therefore, upon perusing the Pamphlet, I find that I have been blameable in any Respect (as in all Probability I may) I will not only con­fess it, but return hearty Thanks both to the Compiler and your Lord­ships, tho' unknown.

Indeed it is but of little Consequence to the Merits of the Cause to know who the Author is.—Only thus much may be said, your Lordships your­selves being Judges, it is not quite fair to give Stabs in the Dark; and it is some Satisfaction to the Person attacked, to know who, and what, his An­tagonists are, that he may know the better how to deal with them— But since that cannot be granted, it may be more to the Purpose, to consider the Matters contain'd in the Pamphlet, and to answer for myself, so far as I am concerned.

It is entitled, Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect, usually distinguished by the Name of Methodists.—I think the Title ought rather to run thus— Misrepresentations of the Conduct and PRINCIPLES, of some orthodox, well-meaning Ministers and Members of the Church of Eng­land, and Loyal Subjects to his Majesty King George, FALSLY TERM'D A SECT, and usually distinguished, OUT OF CONTEMPT, by the Name of Me­thodists. This Title, my Lords, would just answer the Contents.— For [Page 6] the Principles as well as Conduct of the Methodists are struck at, and greatly misrepresented in this Pamphlet.—And the Methodists are no Sect, no Sepa­ratists from the establish'd Church, neither do they call People from her Communion.—Besides the Author ought to have added, A New Edition, with several Alterat [...]ons, Additions and Corrections; for otherwise the World is made to believe, that this is the self-same Composition which was handed about some Months ago, and which I had a hasty Reading of.— Whereas there are several Things omitted, some Things added, and divers Alterations made in this New Edition, so that the Title-Page is not only injudicious, but false and scandalous.

And if the Title-Page is so bad, I fear the Design and Scope of the Pam­phlet itself is much worse.—For is it not to represent the Proceedings of the Methodists as dangerous to the Church and State, in order to procure an Act of Parliament against them, or oblige them to secure themselves by turning Dissenters?

But is not such a Motion, at such a Season as this, both uncharitable and unseasonable.—Is not the Administration engaged enough already in other Affairs, without troubling themselves with the Methodists? Or who would now advise them to bring farther Guilt upon the Nation, by persecuting some of the present Government's most hearty Friends? — I say, my Lords, the present Government's most hearty Friends. — For tho' the Metho­dists (as the World calls them) disagree in some Particulars, yet I dare venture to affirm, that to a Man they all agree in this, viz. to love and honour the King. — For my own part, I profe [...] myself a zealous Friend to his present Majesty King George, and the present Administration.—Where­ever I go, I think it my Duty to pray for and preach up Obedience to him, and all that are set in Authority under him, in the most explicite Manner.— And I believe should it ever come to the Trial, the poor despised Metho­dists who love his Majesty out of Principle, would cleave close to him in the most imminent Danger, when others that adhere to him, only for his Preferments, perhaps might not appear altogether so hearty. — My Lords, I have now been a Preacher above seven Years, and for these six Years last past, have been called to act in a very publick Way.—Your Lordships must have heard of the very great Numbers that have attended. Some times several of the Nobility, and now and then even some of the Clergy have been present. — Did they ever hear me speak a disloyal Word? Are th [...]re not Thousands can testify how fervently and frequently I pray for his Majesty King George, his Royal Offspring, and the present Go­vernment? Yes, my Lords, they can. — And I trust thro' the Divine Assistance, I should be enabled to do so, tho' surrounded with Popish Ene­mi [...] an [...] in Danger of dying for it as soon as my Prayer was ended. — This, my Lords, as far as I am acquainted with them, is the present Temp­er [Page 7] of me and my Friends. — And may I not then appeal to your L [...] ­ships, whether it be not the Interest of the Administration to encourage such Persons, or at least to let them alone? Gallio on a like Occasion thought it his Wisdom to act thus.— ‘For when the Jews made Insurrecti­on with one Accord against Paul, and brought him to the Judgment Seat, saying, this Fellow persuadeth. Men to worship God contrary to [...]he Law, he said unto the Jews, if it were a matter of wrong or wicked Lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you,—But if it be a ques­tion of Words and Names, and of your Law, look ye to it, for I will be no Judge of such Matters,’ —Nay, he was so far from approving of their Mo­tion, that he drove them from the Judgment-Seat.

My Lords, I know of no Law of the State that we have broken, and therefore we have not incurred the Displeasure of the Civil Power.—If your Lordships apprehend that we are liable to Ecclesiastical Censures, we are ready to make a proper Defence whenever called to it by our Ecclesi­astical Superiors.—As for myself, your Lordships very well know that I am a Batchelor of Arts, have taken the Oaths, subscribed to the Articles, and have been twice regularly ordained.—In this Character I have acted both at Home and Abroad, and know of no Law of our Government which prohibits my preaching in any Field, Barn, Street or Out-house whatsoever.

It is true one or two of my Friends, who preach as I do, were bred Dis­senters, had been licensed, and preached in licensed Places before my Ac­quaintance with them, and one or two of the Houses where the Methodists meet, have, without my Knowledge, been licensed since; and therefore the Author of the Pamphlet is quite mistaken in his first Paragraph (as well as the Title-Page and Design of his Pamphlet) wherein he declares, that ‘it does not appear that any of the Preachers among the Methodists have qualified themselves and the Places of their assembling, according to the Act of Toleration; which Act warrants separate Assemblies for the Worship of God, that before were un­lawful.’ — I wish the Author had taken a little more Care to inform himself before he published the Pamphlet. — He would not then have been guilty of so many egregious Mistakes, or without Cause have condemn'd the Innocent, as he hath done.—However, in the general, he is right.—for, as yet, we see no sufficient Reason to leave the Church of England, and turn Dissenters;—neither will we do it till we are thrust out. When a Ship is leaky, prudent Sailors, that value the Cargo, will not leave it to sink, but rather continue in it so long as they can, to help pump out the water.—I leave the Author, my Lords, to make the Application.

But whether the Methodists are Churchmen or Dissenters, the Acts of King Charles II. referred to, Pag. 3. Parag. 1. and Pag. 4. Parag. 2. make [Page 8] nothing against them, neither do they prove the Methodists to be Viola­ters of the Statute Law by their being Field-Preachers. And what the Author so peremptorily affirms, Page 4. Parag. 3. is directly false — For he says, that ‘it has not been known, that a dissenting Teacher of any De­nomination whatever, has thought himself warranted, under the Act of Toleration, to preach in Fields or Streets.’ —It may not, indeed, be known to the Author; but I know, my Lords, two of the most eminent among the dissenting Ministers, who have thought themselves warranted, if not by the Act of Toleration, yet by the Laws of the Land, to preach out of Doors; and accordingly, when the House would not contain the People, have preached in a Field or Orchard, and near the common High­way. — My Lords, I have been perusing all the Acts of King Charles II. wherein the Word Field is mentioned, and find they are intended ‘to suppress seditious Conventicles, for prohibiting further, and more proper speedy Remedies against the growing and dangerous Practices or sediti­ous Sectaries, and other disloyal Persons, who, under Pretence of tender Consciences, have, or may, at their Meetings contrive Insurrections (as late Experience hath shewn)’ These, my Lords, are the Preambles of the Acts.—These are the only Field Meetings I can find that are prohibited. —And how, my Lords, can such Acts be applied to the Methodists? Does not such an Application imply a Charge against the Methodists, as tho' they were seditious Sectaries, disloyal Persons, who, under Pretence of tender Consciences, have, or may contrive Insurrections. Has any late Experience, my Lords, shewn this? No, my Lords, and I hope no future Experience ever will.— How then can your Lordships, with a safe Conscience, encourage such a Pamphlet, or bespeak any Number of Mr. Owen, in order, as may be sup­posed, that they may be dispersed among your Lordship's Clergy? Well might the Author conceal his Name. — It comes into publick like a Child dropt that no body cares to own. And indeed, who can be blamed for disowning such a Libel? — For how, my Lords, does it appear by these Acts, what the Author so confidently asserts, Pag. 4. Parag. 2. ‘that this new Sect of Methodists have broken thro' all these Provisions and Restraints, neither regarding the Penalties of the Laws, which stand in full Force against them, nor embracing the Protection which the Act of Toleration might give them, in case they complied with the Condi­tions of it;’ —How can he immediately add, ‘and if this be not an open Defiance to Government, it is hard to say what is?’ —May I not more justly say, if this be not an open Defamation, and open Defiance of all Rules of Charity, it is hard to say what is? Might he not as well tax the Methodists with Treason?—Father, forgive him!—Lord Jesus lay not this Sin to his Charge!

[Page 9]Tho' the Reign, my Lords, of King Charles II. wherein the Acts be­fore referred to were made, was not the most mild and moderate in re­ligious Matters, yet your Lordships very well know the famous Trial of M [...]e and Penn; how after the Jury had been confined so long, they brought them in guilty only of speaking in Grace-Church-street.— And if Quakers met with so much Lenity under the Reign of King Charles, what Liberty of preaching in Fields and elsewhere may not the loyal Ministers and Members of the Church of England, nay, Protestant Dis­senting Teachers also, expect under the more gentle and moderate Reign of his present Majesty King George, who, as I have been informed, has declared " there shall be no Persecution in his Days."—May the Crown long flourish on his Royal Head, and a Popish Pretender neve [...] be per­mitted to sit upon the English Throne! To this I believe all the Me­thodists will heartily say, Amen, and Amen.

That the Methodists, in general, are Members of the establish'd Church, the Author of the Pamphlet himself confesses.—For, Pag. 4. Parag. 4. after he has, without Proof, charged them with making open In­roads upon the National Constitution; he adds, that ‘ these Teachers and their Followers affect to be thought Members of the National Church.—’ And his following Words prove that they not only affect it, but are Members of the established Church in reality.—For, says he, ‘and do accordingly join in Communion with it.’ —And it appears, Parag. 6, that some of the Methodists communicate every Lord's-Day.—What bet­ter Proof can they give of their being Members of the Church of Eng­land? It would be well if all her Members gave a like Proof. — But then, says our Author, Pag. 4. Parag. 4. they do it in a Man­ner that is ‘very irregular, and contrary to the Directions laid down in the Rubrick before the Communion, which is establish­ed by the Act of Uniformity.’ — This Rubrick, says he, di­rects as follows. Pag. 4. Parag. 4. ‘ So many as intend to be Par­takers of the holy Communion, shall signify their Names to the Curate, at least, some time the Day before.’ — And, for not doing this, the new Sect of Methodists, Parag. 5. Pag. 6. is charg'd not only with break­ing through, but "notoriously despising these wholesome Rules."— But how unjust is such a Charge? When I read it, it put me in mind of what the poor persecuted Officers of the Children of Israel said to Pha­roah, Exod. v.15, 16. Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy Servants? There is no Straw given unto thy Servants. They say unto us, Make Brick, and behold thy Servants are beaten, but the Fault is in thy own People.—For, my Lords, is it not the Business of the Clergy to see this Rubrick put in Execution? And the Duty of the Church-Wardens, according to the 28th Canon, quoted by our Author, Pag. 5. Parag. 4. ‘ to mark whether any Strangers come [...]ten, and commonly from other Parishes to their Churches, [Page 10] and to shew the Ministers of them.’ — But, my Lords, where is this Rubrick or Canon observed or insisted on by the Ministers or Church Wardens through England, Ireland, Wales, or his Majesty's Town of Ber­wick upon Tweed, except now and then when they entertain a Grudge against some particular Methodists? These, my Lords, would rejoice to see, that Ministers and Church-wardens would do their Duty in this Parti­cular.— For many of them have been so offended by the Clergy's pro­miscuously and carelesly admitting all Sorts of People to the Communion, that if it had not been for me, they would have left the Church only upon this Account.—We would therefore humbly recommend it to your Lord­ships, that you, and the rest of the Right Reverend the Bishops, would insist upon Curates and Church-wardens putting this, and all other such wholesome Laws and Rubricks, in Execution.—That which is holy would not then be given unto Dogs, nor so many open and notorious Evil-Livers take the sacred Symbols of our Lord's most blessed Body and Blood into their unhallowed Hands and Mouths. The Methodists wish your Lord­ships Prosperity in this much-wish'd-for, tho' long-neglected Part of Re­formation in the Name of the Lord.

At the same time, my Lords, I would not say any thing that might a­ny way encourage Disorders; neither would I perswade the Methodists to leave their own Parish Churches when the Sacrament is administered there. On the contrary, I would have them take the Author's Advice, Pag. 6. Parag. 6. ‘If particular Persons are disposed to receive Weekly, when the Sacrament is not administered at their own Parish-Church, to repair privately to the Church nearest their own, where the Sacra­ment is administer'd every Lord's-day, having first signified their Names to the Minister, as the Rubrick directs.’ —This, I believe, they will readily comply with.—For I cannot think with this Author (in the same Paragraph,) that the Reason of their coming in such Numbers is, that they may have the vain Pleasure of appearing together in a Body, and as a distinct Sect.—We would rather, according the Rules of that Charity which hopeth all things for the best, believe that they come together in such Companies to animate and encourage one another.— Dr. Horneck, I remember, in his Account of the primitive Christians, remarks, that "where you saw one Christian, you might generally see more." And is it not delightful, my Lords, to behold a Communion Table crowded? Do not such as complain of it discover something of the Spirit of those Pharisees, who were angry when so many People brought their Sick to be healed by our Lord Jesus on the Sabbath-day? For I cannot think the Ministers complain of this only on account of their being hereby ‘ put under the Difficulty ( Parag. 5. Pag. 6.) either of rejecting great Num­bers as unknown to them, or administring the Sacrament to great Num­bers, of whom they have no Knowledge,’ because it is too too notorious [Page 11] that Hundreds receive the blessed Sacrament, both in London and other Places, where there are no Methodists, whom the Minister knows little or nothing at all about, takes no pains to enquire after. Oh that the Author's mentioning this may be a means of stirring up the Clergy to ap­prove themselves good Shepherds by seeking, as much as in them lies, to know the State of all that come to the holy Communion!

This, as well as the other Objections against the Methodists, are so tri­vial, and the Acts referred to as discountenancing their Field-preaching so impertinent, that the Author, without the least Degree of a prophetick Spirit, might easily foresee, Parag. 8. Pag. 8. ‘that this, and every other SUCH Complaint against the Methodists, would be censured not only by them, (but by every impartial Person) as a Discouragement to Piety and Devotion, and particularly a religious Observation of the Lord's-day.’ —Nay, my Lords, he might have foreseen that it would be cen­sured as a wicked, false and ill-designing Libel.—For is it not wicked to re­present innocent and loyal Persons, as open Defiers of Government, Pag. 4. Parag. 2. and making open Inroads upon the National Constitution ( Parag. 4.) without bringing any real Proofs of either?

I am not, my Lords, of the Author's Opinion, Parag. 8. Pag. 8. ‘that this Slander (of his being a Libeller) is effectually confuted by looking back to the State of the several Religious Societies of London and Westminster for many Years past.’ —This will only serve to encrease every unpreju­diced Person's Censure of this Performance, and more effectually, without the least Degree of Slander, prove it a notorious Libel.— For wherein do the Methodists Societies transgress the Laws of Church or State any more than the Societies in London and Westminster?— ‘Do the particular Mem­bers of each Society ( Parag. 8. Pag. 8.) attend the publick Duties of the Day together with their Neighbours, as the Laws of Church and State direct?’ Do not the Members of the Methodists Societies the same? ‘Have the Members of the religious Societies in London and West­minster (as the Author mentions in the same Paragraph) also (by private Agreements among themselves) their Evening Meetings, to employ the Remainder of the Day in serious Conversation, and in reading good Books, &c.’ Have not the Members of the Methodists Societies Li­berty to enter into a like private Agreement among themselves? ‘Have the Members of the London Societies behaved with Modesty and Decen­cy, wi [...]out any Violation of publick Order and Regularity?’ So have ours, my Lords, as all must confess who have been present when our Socie­ties met.

And therefore, my Lords, if these London Societies, as our Author says, Parag. 8. Pag. 8. have received no Discouragements, but, on the contrary, have been countenanced and encouraged by the Bishops and Clergy, why do not the Methodists meet with the same Treatment? Are they not as [Page 12] loyal Subjects? If the one read a Prayer, may not the other pray extempo­re? Does any Law of God or Man forbid it? If the one meet in a Vestry, or private House, may not the other meet in a Foundery or Tabernacle? Are not your Lordships therefore reduced to this Dilemma, either to en­courage both or neither? or at least give the World better Reasons than the Author of this Pamphlet has, why your Lordships should countenance and encourage the one, and so strenuously discountenance and discourage the other.

For my own part, my Lords, I know of no Reason why they are dis­countenanced, except this, viz. ‘The Methodists Societies ( as they are called) are more for the Power of Godliness than those other Societies of London and Westminster.’ —I assure your Lordships, I have not been altogether a Stranger to these Societies.—I used to meet with some of them frequently, and have more than once preached their Quarterly Ser­mon at Bow-Church.— Some who before had only the Form of Godliness, our Saviour was since pleased to call effectually by his Grace.—But when they began to talk feelingly and experimentally of the New-Birth, free Justification and the Indwelling of the Spirit of God in Believers Hearts, they were soon looked upon as Righteous over-much, and accordingly were cast out by their self-righteous Brethren.— These were the late Extrava­gancies, my Lords, into which the Author (just at the Conclusion of his first Part) says, that some have been unhappily misled; and this, my Lords, was the first Rise of the Societies which the Methodists now frequent. —Oh, that He and all that oppose them had been misled into the like Extravagancies! I mean a real Experience of the New-Birth, and the Righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed and applied to their Souls by Faith through the Operation of the Eternal Spirit! For without this they can­not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.—These things, my Lords, the first Members of the Religious Societies in London and Westminster were no Strangers to.—Nay, their being misled into what the Author calls the Methodists late Extravagancies, was the Rise of their Societies, as well as ours; and they met for the very same Ends, and I believe in the very same Spirit as the Methodists now do.—For a Proof of this, I would refer the Author to Dr. Woodward's Account of the Rise and Progress of the re­ligious Societies in the City of London, &c.— My Lords, I have been reading over his second Chapter, and in reading it could scarce refrain weeping, when I consider'd how blind the Author of this Pamphlet must be, not to discern that the first religious Societies answered as to their Spirit, Experience, and Ends of meeting to the Methodists Societies, as Face answers to Face in the Water.—Let him not therefore mention the Predecessors of the present London Societies (the last Words of the first Part) as though that would strengthen his Cause.—Indeed, my Lords, it weakens it much.—For was it possible for these Predecessors to rise from [Page 13] the dead, and examine our Principles and Practices, and those of the pre­sent religious Societies of London and Westminster, I believe they would utterly disown them, and turn Methodists too.

And why, my Lords, should the Author be so averse to Field-preaching? Has not our Saviour given a Sanction to this Way of preaching? Was not the best Sermon that was ever preach'd delivered on a Mount? Did not our Glorious Emanuel (after he was thrust out of the Synagog [...]s) preach from a Ship, in a Wilderness, &c? Did not the Apostles after his Ascension, preach in Schools, Publick Markets, and such like Places of Re­sort and Concourse? And can we copy after better Examples? If it be said "that the World was then Heathen," I answer, and am perswaded your Lordships will agree with me in this, that there are Thousands and Ten Thousands in his Majesty's Dominions, as ignorant of true and un­defiled Religion, as ever the Heathens were? And are not Persons who dare venture out, and shew such poor Souls the way to Heaven, real Friends both to Church and State? And why then, my Lords, should the Civil Power be applied to in order to quell and suppress them? Or a Pamphlet encouraged by several of the Right Reverend the Bishops, which is manifestly calculated for that Purpose? I would humbly ask your Lordships, whether it would not be more becoming your Lordships Characters, to put your Clergy on preaching against Revelling, Cock-fighting, and such like, than to move the Government against those, who out of Love to God and precious Souls put their Lives in their Hand and preach unto such Revellers, Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus? What if the Methodists, by Pub­lick Advertisements do invite the Rabble? (as our Author is pleased to write Pag. 4. Paragraph 2.) Is not the same done by other Clergy, and even by your Lordships, when you preach Charity Sermons? But, my Lords, what does the Author mean by the Rabble? I suppose the com­mon People.—If so, these are they who always heard the Blessed Jesus gladly.—It was chiefly the Poor, my Lords, the ΟΧΛΟΣ, the Turba, the Mob, the Multitude, these People who the Scribes and Pharisees, said knew not the Law, and were accursed; these were they that were evan­gelized, had the Gospel preached unto them, and received the Spirit of God's dear Son.—Not many Mighty, not many Noble are called, says the Apostle. Indocti rapiunt coelum, dum nos cum doctrina descendimus in Gehennam, says one of the Fathers.— And therefore, my Lords, suppos­ing we do advertise the Rabble, and none but such make up our Audi­tories (which is quite false) if this be the Methodist's Shame, they may glory in it.—For these Rabble, my Lords, have precious and immortal Souls, for which the dear Redeemer shed his precious Blood, as well as the Great and Rich.—These, my Lords, are the Publicans and Har­lots that enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, whilst Self-righteous formal [Page 14] Professors reject it. To shew such poor Sinners the way to God, to preach to them the Power of Christ's Resurrection, and to pluck them as Firebrands out of the Burning, the Methodists Preachers go out into the Highways and Hedges,—If this is to be vile, by the Help of my God, I shall be more vile; neither count I my Life dear unto myself, so that I may finish my Course with Joy, and be made instrumental in turning any of this Rabble to Righteousness.— And more especially do I think it my Duty to invite and preach to this Rabble in all Places, where Providence shall send me, at this Season, that I may warn them against the dreadful Effects of Popish Principles, and exhort them to ex­ert their utmost Endeavours to keep out a Popish Pretender from ever sitting upon the English Throne.—In acting thus, I humbly apprehend, I can do most service to the Cause of the Blessed Jesus, his present Ma­jesty King George, my Fellow-Subjects, and the Government under which I live.—And, however, such kind of Preachers may be every where spoken against now, yet I doubt not but at the great decisive Day they will be received with a Euge Bone, and shine as Stars in the Firmament for ever and ever; whilst those who have only divined for Hire, have fed themselves and not the Flock, and lorded it over God's Heri­tage, perhaps, may pay dear for their Preferment, and rise to everlasting Contempt—Pardon me, my Lords, for expressing myself here with some Degree of Warmth.—I must own it gives me Concern, to see some of the Clergy strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel, and attempt to [...] the Mote out of our Eyes, before they have pulled the Beam out of their own.—Is it not ridiculous, my Lords, even in the Eyes of worldly Men, and does it not render the Author of this Pamphlet, justly liable to Con­tempt, to charge the Methodists with breaking Canons and Rubricks, which is really not their Faults, when at the same time he knows that the Generality of the Clergy so notoriously break both Canons and Ru­bricks, and that too in the most important Articles, such as not CATE­CHISING PLURALITIES, NON-RESIDENCE, &c. every Day them­selves?— With what Face can he do it? Is not this like Nero's set­ting Rom [...] on Fire, and then charging it upon the Christians? May not Physician heal thyself, be immediately retorted on him?

But I have done.—I would not bring a railing Accusation against a­ny. —Neither would I, my Lords, when giving a Reason of the Hope that is in me, do [...] any otherways than with Meekness and Fe [...]r. — I would therefore now proceed to answer the other Parts of the Pamph­let; but I shal [...] reserve that for another Letter, which, God willing, shall be published in a short Time.— In the mean while, I humbly re­commend this to the Divine Blessing and your Lordships Considerations, and beg leave to subscribe myself, my Lords,

A LETTER To the RIGHT REVEREND The Bishop of London, &c.

I Troubled your Lordships with a Letter some Time ago—I now pro­ceed according to my Promise at the close of that, to answer the re­mainder of the Anonymous Pamphlet entitled, Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the Name of Methodists.— The Author opens the second Part with this Preface— ‘Besides the many Irregularities which are justly charged upon these Iti­nerant Preachers as Violations of the Laws of Church and State; it may be proper to enquire, whether the Doctrines they teach, or those Lengths they run, beyond what is practiced among our religious Societies, or in any other Christian Church; be a Service or a Disservice to Re­ligion? To which purpose, the following Queries are submitted to Con­sideration’ — It is here taken for granted that the Methodists (termed by our Author either out of Contempt, or by way of Periphrasis) these Itinerant Preachers are justly charged with many Irregularities, which amount to Violations of the Laws of Church and State. But how has the Author proved, what He here takes for granted? I humbly apprehend not at all — For has it not appeared in my Answer to the first Part of his Observations, that neither the Act of Toleration nor that of Charles IId any way affects the Methodists, as being Loyal Subjects to His Majesty King George, and Members of the Church of England? How then have they been justly charged with Violations of the Laws of the State? And has it not been equally made to appear that the Irregularity the Author says the Methodists have been guilty of, in coming to other parish Churches to receive the Sacrament, is owing to the Negligence of your Lordship's Clergy [Page 4] and Church-wardens? How then have they been justly charged with Viola­tions of the Laws of the Church? But may we not suppose by his speak­ing seemingly so contemptuously of these Itinerant Preachers, that Iti­nerant preaching itself, is one of these many Irregularities and Violatio [...]s of the Laws of the Church at least, if not of the State, which according to this Author are justly charged upon these Itinerant Preachers? His eighth Query, page 11th (which for Method Sake I would here beg leave to make some Remarks upon) bespeaks as much—For He therein submits it to the Consideration of the publick ‘Whether; in a Christian Nation, where the Instruction and Edification of the People is provided for, by placing Ministers in certain Districts, to whom the Care of the Souls within those Districts is regularly committed; It can be for the Service of Religion, that Itinerant Preachers run up and down from Place to Place and from County to County, drawing after them confused Multitudes of Peo­ple? An Evil which our Church has wisely provided against, says our Author, in the Ordination of a Priest, by expresly limiting the Exercise of the Powers conferred upon him, of preaching the Word of God, and administring the Holy Sacraments, to the Congregation where He shall be lawfully appointed thereunto’ — Here indeed is a heinous Irregularity charged upon these Itinerant Preachers, even a Violation of the Commission given them when they were ordained Priests; — But with what Justice, I would refer to your Lordships Consideration — For if, the Commission given us when Ordained Priests, absolutely prohibits us to preach any where besides in the Congregation where we shall be lawfully appointed there­unto, will it not prove too much? And has not the Author in endeavour­ing to reproach us, unwarily reproached your Lordships also?—For are not your Lordships then equally irregular, equally Violators of the Laws of the Church whenever You preach (tho' it be never so seldom) out of your Lordships respective Diocesses? And does not this commission thus strictly taken, absolutely forbid any Presbyters whatsoever preaching any where be­sides in their own particular Congregations? And if so, are not all Mini­sters that exchange Pulpits equally irregular, at least as rea [...]ly Violators of their Ordination Commission as these Itinerant Preachers?

Our Author in the following Paragraph under the forementioned Query tells us, ‘that the Bishops indeed and also our two Universities have power to grant Licences to preach, of a larger extent, to such Clergymen as as they judge proper; who, in virtue thereof may, if they chuse, travel from place to place as Itinerants — But then the Church has provided in that Case ( Can. 50) That neither the Minister, Church Wardens, nor any other Officers of the Church shall suffer any Man to preach within the Churches and Chapels, but such as by showing their Licence to preach, shall appear unto them to be sufficiently Authorized there­unto [Page 5] unto’ — What these Licences for Itinerant preaching are to which the Author here refers is not certain — Does He not seem to mean the Com­mon Licences which Your Lordships give the Clergy, when they take upon them Holy Orders? Are not these the Licences which the Church-wardens examine? And what is the end of these Licences? Was it ever heard be­fore that they were to qualify persons to be Itinerant Preachers? Is not the plain end of them to satisfy the Church-wardens that the persons that offer their Service have had a regular Ordination and are sufficiently Authorised to preach? And does not the Author know that these Licences now are little regarded? Do not our Letters of Orders answer the same end to all intents and purposes? Were they not judged sufficient at our first setting out into the Ministry? And after all, what is it that the Ministers and Church-wardens can do to persons that have not these Licences? Why they are not to suffer them to preach within their Churches and Chapels? But have they any power, my Lords, to hinder them from preaching without their Churches or Chapels? No, blessed be God their power is limited within, Hitherto can they go, and no further — And therefore supposing these Itinerant Preachers tho' they have no Licences, do not preach within any Churches or Chapels without the Ministers or Church-wardens consent, how are they justly charged with Violating a Law of the Church, tho' they should preach without doors to as great Multitudes as shall be inclined to hear them?

He proceeds in the 3d paragraph under this 8th Query to write thus ‘the practice of licensing Itinerant Preachers was occasioned by the low ta­lents of many Incumbents in the more early days of the Reformation? whose Abilities carry'd them no farther than to the reading of Homilies, a defect which has long been remedied by a Liberal Education of suf­ficient Numbers of Persons for the Ministry, who regularly perform the Office of Preaching, as well as other Duties, in the Parishes committed to their Care. And if the forementioned Defect did still continue, as God be thanked, it does not; it would be ill supplied by our Modern Itinerants, who make it their p [...]incipal employ where ever they go, to instill into the People a few favourite tenets of their own; and this, with such Diligence and Zeal as if the whole of Christianity depended upon them, and all Efforts towards the true Christian Life, without a Belief of those Tenets, were vain and ineffectual.’

But my Lords, what can this Author mean by writing thus? For sup­posing the Practice of Itinerant preaching was primarily occasioned by the low Talents of many Incumbents in the more early Days of the Reformati­on, does it therefore follow, that there can be no other just Cause assigned for Itinerant preaching now? What if the Generality of the present many Incumbents depart from the good old Doctrines that were preached in the [Page 6] more early Days of the Reformation, and notwithstanding their liberal E­ducation, make no other Use of their Learning but to explain away the Ar­ticles and Homilies to which they have subscribed in the grammatical and literal Sense? Is it not necessary in order to keep up the Doctrines, and thereby the real Dignity of the Church, that either the Clergy thus dege­nerated, should be obliged to read the Homilies as formerly, and to preach consistently therewith, or that those who do hold the Doctrines of the Re­formation, should go about from Place to Place, and from County to County, nay from Pole to Pole, if their Sphere of Action extended so far, to direct poor Souls that are every-where ready to perish for lack of Know­ledge, into the right Way which leadeth unto Life? That this is the Case between the established Clergy and these Itinerant Preachers will appear presently; and how then can this Author charge them with making it their principal Employ, wherever they go, to instill into the People a few favou­rite Tenets of their own? Has the Author follo [...]ed them wherever they have preached, that he asserts this so confidently concerning them? Is it not to be wished that he had at least taken Care to have been better inform­ed? For then he would have saved himself from the Guilt of a notorious Slander. For is it not evident to all that hear them, that the favourite Tenets the Itinerant Preachers make it their principal Employ to instill into People's Minds wherever they go, are the Great Doctrines of the Refor­mation, Homilies and Articles of the Church? Such as Man's bringing into the World with him a Corruption which renders him liable to God's Wrath and eternal Damnation— That the Condition of Man after the Fall of Adam, is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural Strength and good Works to Faith and calling upon God — That we are ac­counted righteous before God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own Works or Deservings — That they are to be accursed, that presume to say, that every Man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his Life according to that Law, and the Light of Nature— These, my Lords, are some of the favourite Tenets of these Itinerant Preachers— Their others are like unto them — Can these, my Lords, be properly called their Own? Or ought it not to be the principal Employ of every true Minister wherever he goes, to instill such T [...]nets, and that too with the utmost Diligence and Zeal into the People's Minds? Does not a great Part of Christianity de­pend on them? And are not all Pretensions to a true Christian Life, with­out a Belief of these Tenets, vain and ineffectual? May not these Itinerant Preachers therefore complain unto your Lordships of this anonymous Au­thor as Mephibosheth complained to David of treacherous Z [...]ba? Doubtless he hath [...] them — And wherefore does he speak so contemp­tuously [...] Is it not an amiable and honourable Cha­racter? [Page 7] And may I not take the Freedom of acquainting your Lordships, that if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their Duty, (especially my Lord of London, whose Diocess is of such a vast Extent) they would all of them long since have commenced Itinerant Preachers too?

But to return to an Examination of the other Part of the Author's Pre­face —After he has taken it for granted, that many Irregularities are justly charged upon these Itinerant Preachers as ‘Violations of the Laws of Church and State, He adds, it may be proper to enquire, whether the Doctrines they teach, and those Lengths they run beyond what is prac­tised among our Religious Societies, or in any other Christian Church, be a Service or Disservice to Religion.’ The Religious Societies or any other Christian Church? What? Does our Author make the Religious Societies a Church? This is going further than the Methodists, whom he is pleased to stile only a Sect? But if the Religious Societies, my Lords, be a Church, may it not be proper to enquire how their Doctrines or Prac­tices came to be set up as a Rule and Standard for others to go by, so that Persons doing Service or Disservice to Religion must be judged of accord­ing as they deviate from or adhere to the Religious Societies either in Doctrine or Practice? Or supposing the Religious Societies were to be a Standard for others to go by, was it not incumbent on the Author to give the publick a short Summary & Account of their Doctrines and Practices? For otherwise how can the World possibly judge whether the Methodists do deviate from them, or if so, whether they do thereby Service or Dis­service to Religion? Indeed this Author has told us in his first Part how the Religious Societies behave on Sundays, but he has no where acquaint­ed us with the Principles they hold, or how they behave on other Days. — And till he does I will venture to affirm, that unless these Itinerants teach other Doctrines than the present Religious Societies generally hold, and run greater Lengths in Christianity than the Generality of them it is to be feared now run, they will be in great Danger of never arriving at the Mark for the Prize of their High-Calling in Christ Jesus their Lord.—

I have been the more particular, my Lord, in the Examination of the Preface, because the Author by annexing these Words, ‘To which Pur­pose the following Queries are submitted to Consideration,’ seems to lay it down as the Ground-work and Foundation of all the subsequent Queries.— And if the Foundation be so weak and sandy, how slight and superficial must the Superstructure be?

I suppose your Lordships will readily grant that it is the bounden Duty of every regular and fair Writer (especially when he is charging others with Irregularities as Violations of the Laws of Church and State) to take Care that he does not violate the Laws of Christian Charity — Or if he puts Queries to the Publick concerning any Persons, ought he not to take [Page 8] heed that those Queries are founded upon Truth, and that the Charges therein exhibited against them are really matter of fact? But our Author has notoriously neglected this fundamental Rule, and thereby not only cast a lasting Blot and Odium upon his own Character, if his Name was known, but also done real Hurt to the Cause he would defend— The Query al­ready examined concerning Itinerant preaching, wherein he has charged the Methodists with instilling into People a few favourite Tenets of their own, sufficiently Demonstrates this — But this is not all, several of the other Queries now coming under Consideration are by no means founded upon Truth, and contain Charges against these Itinerants, whereby they are as much wronged and unjustly vilified as ever Stephen was when the Jews suborned Men which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous Words against Moses and against God, this holy Place and the Law.

To prove this we need only examine the two Queries which immediately follow the Preface—

Query 1st. ‘Whether Notions in Religion may not be heightened to such Extremes as to lead some into a Disregard of Religion itself through Des­pair of attaining such exalted Heights? And whether others, Who have imbibed those Notions, may not be led by them into a Disregard and Dis­esteem of the common Duties and Offices of Life, to such a Degree at least as is inconsistent with that Attention to them and that Diligence in them, which Providence has made necessary to the Well-being of private Families, and publick Societies, and which Christianity does not only require in all Stations and in all Conditions, but declares at the same time ( Col. 3.22. Ephes. 5.6.) that the performance even of the low [...]t Offices in Life, as unto God ( Whose Providence has placed People in the [...]r several Stations) is truly Serving Christ and will not fail of its Reward in the next World.’

Query 2. ‘Whether the Enemy of Mankind may not find his Ac­count in their carrying Christianity, which was designed for a Rule to all Stations and all Conditions; to such Heights as make it fairly practicable by a very few in Comparison, or rather by none?’

His 5th and 6th Queries, Page the 10th, are like unto them— The [...] run thus, ‘Whether those exalted Strains in Religion, and an Imagination of being already in a State of Perfection, are not apt to lead Men to Spi­ritual Pride and to a Contempt of their Fellow-Christians; while they con­sider them as only going-on in what they account the low and imperfect Way, ( i. e. as growing in Grace and Goodness only by Degrees,)’ And again, ‘Whether the same exalted Strains and Notions do not tend to weaken the natural and civil Relations among Men, by leading the Inferi­ors, into whose Heads those Notions are infused, to a Disesteem of their Superiors; while they consider them as in a much lower Dispensation than [Page 9] themselves; though those Superiours are otherwise sober and good Men, and regular Attendants on the Ordinances of Religion?’

Here again it is supposed that these Itinerant Preachers either imagine ‘themselves to be in a State of Perfection, or at least teach others to imagine that they are—And that the Consequences of this is a weak­ning the natural and civil Relations among Men by leading them to a Disesteem of their Fellow-Christians, and Superiors who are suppo­sed to be in a lower Dispensation than themselves?’

Heavy Charges my Lords, these are indeed!—But what Evidence does our Author produce to prove them? Why really none at all—For here is no Quotation at the Bottom of either of these Queries from any of their Writings, so that we cannot tell whether they are levelled against these Itinerate Preachers in general or any one of them in par­cular— And therefore the Prebend of St. Paul's who has been pleased to reply to my first Letter in Vindication of this Author, has done wrong in affirming, as far as I can recollect, ‘that under each Query there is some Quotation either from my Journals or other Writings, whereon it is founded’ — But there is no such Thing under these Four wherein such heavy Charges are included — And therefore may I not argue, as the Author does upon another Occasion in his first Part, Page 8th, 'till some Proof does appear the Presumption must be that he has none?

In the mean while I dare challenge this Author, and the whole World to produce any Passage out of my Writings wherein I have taught any other Christianity than what through the Aids of the Blessed Spirit is practicable by all Persons in all Conditions; or that I ever preached o­therwise than ‘that the Performance even of the lowest Offices of Life as unto God whose Providence has placed People in their several Stations, is truly a serving of Christ and will not fail of its Reward (though not of Debt yet of Grace) in the next World.’ Neither did I ever imagine that I had attain'd, or was already perfect, or taught Persons to imagine that they were so: No, I expect to carry a Body of Sin and Death about with me as long as I live, and confess from my in­most Soul, that I am the chief of Sinners, and less than the least of all Saints: I am so far from thinking an Imagination that we are already in a State of Perfection, is only apt to lead Men into spiritual Pride, that I condemn it as the very Quintescence and highest Degree of it.— And the more we are conformed to the Divine Image, the more I strict believe we shall be in keeping up our natural and civil Relations among Men, in giving all Honour to whom Honour is due, and in Lowliness of Mind esteeming each other better than ourselves. And if so, my Lords, may not the Author for thus charging these Itinerants in general without Di­stinction be justly stiled a L [...]beller? And how will he undertake to prove that any one of these Itinerant Preachers in particular carries Christianity to [Page 10] any greater Heighth than he himself does Query 13th, Page 16, where in speaking of the Holy Spirit, he has these Words, ‘whose peculiar Office it is, to season the Heart with Humility, and to root out of it the Seeds (what is that but the very Inbeing?) of Pride and vain Glory.’

Is he not very irregular in writing thus at Random; nay, does he not hereby himself openly violate the Laws both of Church and State?

It's true, our Author would appear an Advocate for both, but does not his third Query, page 9th plainly prove him a real Friend to neither; especially the latter? He there (asks, ‘whether in particular, the carry­ing the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone to such a heighth, as not to allow, that a careful sincere Observance of moral Duties is so much as a Condition of our Acceptance with God, and of our being justified in his Sight; Whether this I say, does not naturally lead People to a dis­regard of those Duties, and a low esteem of them; or rather to think them no Part of the Christian Religion;’ It is plain from hence, that one of these Extremes to which these Itinerants exalt Christianity, and whereby its queried, whether they do Service or Disservice to Religion ‘is their carrying the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone to such a Height, as not to allow that a careful and sincere observance of moral Duties is so much as a Condition of our Acceptance with God, and of our being justified in his Sight. Our Author it seems is for another Way of Salvation, viz. Query 5th, page 10th, viz, for Men's gradually working out their own Salvation, by their own honest Endeavours, and thro' the ordinary Assistances of God's Grace; with a humble Reliance upon the Merits of Christ for the Pardon of their Sins and the Acceptance of their Sincere, tho' imperfect Services’ This is our common Divinity — This is what my Lord of London in his last pastoral Letter against Luke warmness and Enthusiasm, exhorted his Clergy to preach — But how contrary is all this to the Articles, and homilies of our Church? For what says the 11th Ar­ticle? ‘We are accounted righteous before God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own Works or De­servings — Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only is a most whol­some Doctrine and very full of Comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification’

And if both the Article & 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 those, viz. moral [Page 11] 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, Rom. 6.1. 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, in somuch 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 [...]o 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 publick 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 Judgement Mr. Chillingworth might be remarkable for I [...]ow not — But if by universal Obedience being necessary to Salvation, He means what our Auther 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 publick Authority — So that to wish for Justification by Faith alone to be put down by publick 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 Pre­bend of St. Paul's) out of the Honeycomb of Free Justification, written [Page 12] by one Mr. Eaton, A. M. of Trinity College in Cambridge, printed at London in the year 1642. "Free Justification, says he, was first enjoined to be di­ligently taught for the Reformation of the Church, by King Henry 8th, but was by King Edward 6th. ‘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 Peoples Sight of their lost Estate, and woful 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, Rom. 5.1. and our Assurance of free Salvation by Jesus Christ, and is there­fore called the Justification of Life, Rom. 5.18. For whom God justifieth, them be also glorifieth, Rom. 8.30.’

2. ‘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, Gal. 5.13.’

4. ‘To direct Ministers orthopodein to go with a right Foot to the Truth of the Gospel, Gal. 2.14. 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, Gal. 1.6. And yet is the true Strength, Happiness, and Safety of the whole Land, Isa. 62.1—6.’

‘Hereupon the fifth 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 sixth 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, altho' 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.’

[Page 13]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. viz. ‘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) endeavour'd 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 yes—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 term'd 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 Arch-Bishop on a Level with Mahomet, (for which I ask the publick Pardon, though perhaps even this Confession may be turn'd 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 Arch-Bishop, 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 the Author of the Whole Duty of Man, and Writers of that Stamp, viz.

[Page 14]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 Pharoah 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 Tenour 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?

How disingenuous then is this Author's 9th Query, Page 12th. ‘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 tha [...] they neither are, nor can be true Christians, but by adhering to their Doctrins and Disciplin, and em­bracing Christianity upon their Schemes. All the while, for the Sake of those Schemes, and in Pursuance of them, violating the wholsome 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 (tho' without Proof, as he had done in the proceeding one) with ‘ setting up their own Schemes, as the great Standard of Christianity, and with telling People that they neither are or 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 [Page 15] that the Methodists preach contrary to the Articles of the establish­ed Church? Or how does he or can he prove, that they affirm that People neither are or 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 Person's 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 wi [...]h 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 into the uncircumcised Gentiles, tho' 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 or 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, Psal. 8.2. Out of the Mouths of Babes an Sucklings has thou ordained Strength, because of thine Enemies, that thou mightest still the Enemy and Avenger? Or that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1. 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 [Page 16] 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 offer'd 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— Iwas refresh'd by a great Packet of Letters, giving me an Account of the success of the Gos­pel— Amost comfortable Packet of Letters, giving me an Account of the Suc­cess of the Gospel— But how does all these Passages, my Lords, put altoge­ther 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, and 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 then be necessarily every where preached down? Does not Luther call this Articulus stantis aut cadentis Ecclesiae? 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 Roarirgs, Agonies, Screamings, Tremblings, Dropping-down, Ravings and such like, is by no Means the great End proposed by these Itinerants pr [...]ching, much [...] was it ever urged bv them as an essential Mark of [...] Spirit of God — And therefore, my Lords, is [Page 17] not our Author very unfair in stating his 4th Query, Page 10th, as he has done, viz. ‘Whether a due and regular Attendance on the publick 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 referr'd to?’ Would one not 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 publick 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 2.37. when they were pricked to the Heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, Me [...] and Brethren, what shall we do to be saved? Or what would this Author think of the Conversion of the Jaylor, Acts 10.29, 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, astonish'd, Acts. 9.6, said, Lord, what will thou have me to do,? and was afterwards, verse 9th, three Days without Sight, and neither did eat nor drink? Is it not to be feared, that if this Author had set 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 firfs planting of the Gospel Church?

[Page 18]But it seems by Query 7th; page 10th, 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 Doctrin of a sudden and instan­taneus 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 ond 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 observe;d, 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 it in the Name of the blessed Trinity, does it not follow, that [...]f 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 & 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 imprest may be suddenly & 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 Dotrine of a sudden and instantaneous Change? And [Page 19] 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 got 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 Cor. 3.11. 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, Ver. 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 13th, ‘Whether the Frame of humane 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, consider'd 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, viz. 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; and to fit us for his Service, they do affirm, that all such Recreations neither are or 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 [Page 20] have consider'd the Frame of humane Nature, is it not evident, that he has not fairly consider'd 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 humane 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 Holy-Days, 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? Is it not therefore forbidden in the Scriptures? Or if he will not hear the Scriptures 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 [...], neither shall they board or lodge in any such Places. Fur­ther [...], 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 [Page 21] if such Things are unseemly in a Clergyman, are they not in a Degree equally unseemly in Laymen whose Priviledge 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 Worlds, set us above such triflng 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 Royal 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 that Power of the dear Redeemer's Resurrection? Need we therefore wonder at his 12th Query, Page 12th, which immediately follows the foregoing one? wherein he enquires, ‘Whether the strong Expressions which are found in their printed Journals, of extraordinary Presences of God directing and assisting them [...] 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 Luke warmness 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 in that 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 other many Irregularities which are justly charged upon this Anonymous Author, if [Page 22] he asks whether the strong Expressions which are found in their (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 & 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 [...] 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 spoke of as felt and experienced, with being downwright 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 Diocess 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 [Page 23] 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 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 wholsome Rules, wisely and piously established "by the Powers Spiritual and Temporal", Query 9th, Page 12th, 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 tho' for so doing they should be mobbed, as they frequently have been, and tho' God be not the Author of Con­fusion or Tumult, as our Author would have it Page 12th, yet they know of one who was mobbed himself upon a like Account, & 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 Jesus Christ and his Apostles in the New-Testament, (whatsoever our Au­thor may say Query 8th. Pag. 11.) to bear a faithful Testimony against them. And being called by the Providence of God abroad, after their unworthy Labours had been bless'd 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 tho' 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 publick Boasting, unbecoming the Modesty and Self-denial of a Minister of the Gospel, especially one who would be tho't 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 wrote with a single Eye to the Redeemer's Glory, they are willing to leave [Page 24] to the Determination of that God, to whom all Hearts are open, all Desires known, and from whom no Secrets are hid — I could here enlarge— But having detained your Lordships too long already, I chuse to refer what I have further to say on these Heads to a Third Letter, which God willing shall be sent another Opportunity, in Answer to the last Part of this Au­thor's Queries, by, my Lords,