“Hereupon, the 5th part of the sermon against disobedience and rebellion, established by Queen Elizabeth, teacheth the commons, that such bishops or ecclesiastical persons, as by pride and ambitious rule, do by terms of error, schism, or heresy, hinder this main light of God’s word from the people, are the chiefest traytors in the land: and the 6th and last part largely teacheth, that such subjects and commons to whom, through ignorance of God’s word, this light of righteousness, and this sun of understanding doth not shine, although they may brag, as did sometimes the Jewish clergy and people, that they cannot lack knowledge, yet are such by their blind dead faith, traytors to God, traytors to their king, traytors to their own souls and bodies, and traytors to the whole land and country.”
Thus far Mr. Eaton. And whether he or Mr. Chillingworth wrote with most piety and judgment on this head, I leave to the author’s consideration. And at the same time appeal to your Lordships, whether the Methodists, by preaching up the doctrine of justification by faith alone, carry christianity to an extreme? or, whether or not this author, by making moral duties a condition of our acceptance with God, and of our being justified in his sight, is not himself guilty of an irregularity which amounts to a violation of the laws both of church and state?
May not this also, my Lords, serve as an answer to our author’s 10th query, page 12th. “Whether it be for the service of religion, to discourage people from reading Archbishop Tillotson’s Sermons and the Whole Duty of Man? to whom our Methodists might have added many more of our best writers after the restoration. For, all these (together with explaining the whole work of our redemption by Christ) endeavoured to turn the minds of people to the practice of moral duties, and to cure them of that madness and enthusiasm into which they had been led by the Antinomian doctrines, and others of the like tendency, during the times of anarchy and confusion?” Undoubtedly; for are they not both wrong in their foundation? The latter indeed lays no foundation by justifying faith at all, and therefore may be more properly termed Half the Duty of Man; and the former, like our author, contrary to the laws of church and state, makes good works a condition of our acceptance with God, and of our being justified in his sight. And though I might have spared my borrowed comparison of putting the Archbishop on a level with Mahomet, (for which I ask the public pardon, though perhaps even this confession may be turned to my reproach) yet I can by no means agree with our author in this same query, page 13th, that either his Grace, or the author of the Whole Duty of Man, explained the whole work of our redemption by Christ. For how can that be possibly done, without explaining the doctrine of justification by faith alone? And therefore, whatever good the Archbishop, and many other of our best writers after the Restoration (as this author stiles them) might design by endeavouring “to turn the minds of people to the practice of moral duties, and to cure them of that madness and enthusiasm into which they had been led by the Antinomian doctrines, and others of the like tendency, during the times of anarchy and confusion,” may I not appeal to your Lordships, whether that of the Poet be not too applicable to his Grace, to the Author of the Whole Duty of Man, and to writers of that stamp:
Incidit in syllam, qui vult vitare Charibdin?
For, is there no way, my Lords, of turning people’s minds to the practice of moral duties, without turning their minds from the doctrine of justification by faith alone, without which, moral duties cannot be acceptable to God at all? What is this, my Lords, but, [♦]Pharaoh like, to command God’s Israel to make brick without giving them straw? And supposing it be true, that the people before the restoration had been led into madness and enthusiasm, by Antinomian doctrines, was there no other way, my Lords, of curing them of this madness, but by preaching down the most fundamental article of the church of England, and so by preaching up the doctrine of justification in the sight of God, partly by works, and partly by faith, bring them half way to the church of Rome? Do not these itinerants, my Lords, by laying down faith as the foundation, and building the superstructure of universal obedience as the fruit of it thereon, keep a proper medium, and take the most effectual method of preserving people from Antinomianism on the one hand, or madness and enthusiasm, anarchy and confusion on the other? And is not this, my Lords, the constant tenor of their sermons? Do they not first labour to bring people to a real faith in Christ as the Lord their righteousness, and then exhort those that believe, to be careful to maintain and shew forth their faith, by a constant uniform performance of all manner of good works?
[♦] “Pharoah” replaced with “Pharaoh”
How disengenuous then is this Author’s 9th query, page 12. “Whether it does not savour of self-sufficiency and presumption, when a few young heads, without any colour of a divine commission, set up their own schemes, as the great standard of christianity: and, how can it be reconciled to christian humility, prudence, or charity, to indulge their own notions to such a degree, as to perplex, unhinge, terrify, and distract the minds of multitudes of people, who have lived from their infancy under a gospel ministry, and in the regular exercise of a gospel worship; and all this, by persuading them, that they have never yet heard the true gospel, nor been instructed in the true way of salvation before: and that they neither are, nor can be true christians, but by adhering to their doctrines and discipline, and embracing christianity upon their schemes? All the while, for the sake of those schemes, and in pursuance of them, violating the wholesome rules, which the powers spiritual and temporal have wisely and piously established, for the preservation of peace and order in the church.”
Here he charges these itinerants (though without proof, as he had done in the preceding one) with “setting up their own schemes, as the great standard of christianity,” and with telling people that “they neither are, nor can be true christians, but by adhering to their doctrines and discipline, and embracing christianity upon their schemes.” Is not this calumny all over? For where has this author made it appear, that the Methodists preach contrary to the articles of the established church? Or how does he or can he prove, that they affirm, “People neither are, nor can be true christians, without adhering to their discipline?” Where are any quotations to this purpose in his observations? Is not this, my Lords, all gratis dictum? And therefore, to use some of his own words, “Does it not savour of self-sufficiency and presumption, and can it be reconciled to christian humility, prudence, or charity,” to indulge his prejudice against any persons living to such a degree, as to lay things to their charge which they never thought of or said? For do not these itinerants freely converse with persons of all communions? Have I not in particular communicated with the church of Scotland, and preached among the churches in New-England? Do not the generality of the clergy cry out against me as a latitudinarian, and look upon me for so doing, as the bigotted Jews did on Peter, for going unto the uncircumcised Gentiles; though I say as he did, “Can any man forbid me to converse with and communicate with those who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” Are not these notorious matters of fact? And how then can this author insinuate, that these itinerants tell people, that they neither are, nor can be christians without adhering to their discipline?
But further, how scornfully does he speak of these itinerants? He stiles them a few young heads. And how unwarily has he thereby shewed his ignorance of the lively oracles of God? For has he never read what David saith, Psalms viii. 2. “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength, because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and avenger?” Or that of the Apostle, 1 Corinthians i. 27, 28. “But God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea and things that are not, to bring to nought things which are?” How presumptuously does he also tax these few young heads in this same query, with acting “without any colour of a divine commission?” For have not several of these young heads received a commission from your Lordships? And does not the success they have met with, as also their being strengthened to stem and surmount such a torrent of opposition, afford some colour at least, that they have acted by a divine commission indeed? For how could a few young heads, my Lords, or any men whatsoever, do such things, unless God was with them?
But our Author, it seems, looks upon what they call success, in a different light, and therefore, in this 9th Query, further asks, “How it can be reconciled to christian humility, prudence, or charity, to indulge their own notions to such a degree, as to perplex, unhinge, terrify, and distract the minds of multitudes of people, who have lived from their infancy under a gospel ministry, and in the regular exercise of a gospel worship; and all this, by persuading them, that they have never yet heard the true gospel, nor been instructed in the true way of salvation before.” To prove this particular part of the Query, he refers to passages which my Lord of London was pleased to extract out of my third Journal some years ago, such as, “I offered Jesus Christ freely to them;—I think Wales is excellently well prepared for the gospel of Christ;—Received news of the wonderful progress of the gospel in Yorkshire, under the ministry of my dear brother Ingham;—I was refreshed by a great packet of letters, giving me an account of the success of the gospel;—A most comfortable packet of letters, giving me an account of the success of the gospel.” But how do all these passages, my Lords, put all together, afford the least shadow of a proof of what this Author here lays to these itinerants charge? Or how can offering Christ freely, and hearing and writing of the success of the gospel, be interpreted as perplexing, unhinging, terrifying, and distracting the minds of multitudes of people, &c.? Is not this, my Lords, like the other proofs he brings against these itinerants in some other respects? And may I not venture to affirm now, whatever I did some years ago, that if the Right Reverend the Bishops, and Reverend the Clergy, hold the same principles with this anonymous Author, then the generality of the poor people of England, however regular they may have been from their infancy in the exercise of a gospel worship, never yet lived under a gospel ministry, have never yet heard the true gospel, or been instructed in the true way of salvation. For how can that be, when the fundamental doctrine of the gospel, I mean justification by faith alone in the sight of God, must be necessarily every where preached down? Does not Luther call this, Articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ? And is there any thing, my Lords, so very irreconcilable to christian humility, prudence, or charity, for a few young heads, who do hold this doctrine, (seeing those who seem pillars, and are the aged heads of the church, are so much out of order) to venture out and preach this doctrine to as great multitudes of people as will give them the hearing? And supposing some of these multitudes should be unhinged, terrified, distracted, or disturbed a little, is it not better they should be thus unhinged from off their false foundation here, than by building upon their own works, and going about to establish a righteousness of their own, endanger their eternal salvation hereafter?