The distracting people’s minds to such a degree as to occasion sudden roarings, agonies, screamings, tremblings, dropping-down, ravings, and such like, is by no means the great end proposed by these itinerants preaching, much less was it ever urged by them as an essential mark of the co-operation of the Spirit of God. And therefore, my Lords, is not our Author very unfair in stating his 4th Query, page 10, as he has done: “Whether a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid by good men in a serious and composed way, does not better answer the true ends of devotion, and is not a better evidence of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, than those sudden agonies, roarings and screamings, tremblings, droppings-down, ravings and madnesses, into which their hearers have been cast; according to the relations given of them in the Journals referred to?” Would not one imagine by this Query, that these itinerants laid down such things as screamings, tremblings, &c. as essential marks of the co-operations of the Holy Spirit? But can any such thing be proved? Are they not looked upon by these itinerants themselves, as extraordinary things, proceeding generally from soul-distress, and sometimes it may be from the agency of the evil spirit, who labours to drive poor souls into despair? Does not this appear from the relation given of them in one of the Journals referred to? Are there not many relations of the co-operation of the Spirit in the same Journal, where no such bodily effects are so much as hinted at? And does not this give ground to suspect, that “the due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid by (what our Author calls) good men, in a serious and composed way,” is little better than a dead formal attendance on outward ordinances, which a man may continue in all his life-time, and be all the while far from the kingdom of God? Did ever any one before hear this urged as an evidence of the co-operation of the Spirit? Or would any one think, that the Author of the observations ever read the relations that are given of the conversion of several in the holy scriptures? For may we not suppose, my Lords, that many were cast into sudden agonies and screamings, Acts ii. 37. when “they were pricked to the heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved?” Or what would this Author think of the conversion of the Jailor, Acts x. 29, 30. “who sprang in, and came trembling and fell down before Paul and Silas; and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Or what would he think of Paul, who trembling and astonished, Acts ix. 6. said, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” and was afterwards, verse 9, “three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink?” Is it not to be feared, that if this Author had been seated upon the bench, and heard this Apostle give an account of his own conversion, he would have joined with Festus in crying out with a loud voice, “Paul, much learning hath made thee mad?” And are not all these things, and whatever else is recorded in the book of God, written for our learning? Is not God the same yesterday, to-day, for ever? And may he not now, as well as formerly, reveal his arm and display his power in bringing sinners home to himself as suddenly and instantaneously as in the first planting of the gospel church?
But it seems, by Query 7, page 10, that our Author doubts whether there be any such thing as a sudden and instantaneous change. For he there enquires, “Whether a gradual improvement in grace and goodness, is not a better foundation of comfort, and of an assurance of a gospel new birth, than that which is founded on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change; which, if there be any such thing, is not easily distinguished from fancy and imagination; the workings whereof we may well suppose to be more strong and powerful, while the person considers himself in the state of one who is admitted as a candidate for such a change, and is taught in due time to expect it?” Here it is to be observed, that after telling of a sudden and instantaneous change, he adds, “if there be any such thing.” What, my Lords, does this Author profess himself an advocate for the church of England, and yet say, “If there be any such thing as a sudden instantaneous change?” Does he not hereby lay an ax to the very root of the baptismal office? For if the child be actually regenerated by the Holy Ghost, when the minister sprinkles water upon him in the name of the blessed Trinity, does it not follow, that if any change at all be wrought in the child at that time, it must be sudden and instantaneous? And does he then say, “If there be any such thing?” And do your Lordships assent thereto? With what reason then are these itinerants upbraided for talking of a sudden, instantaneous change, upon which the very essence of baptismal regeneration, that Diana of the present clergy, entirely depends?
Besides, with what confidence or rules of fair reasoning can he here enquire, “Whether a gradual improvement in grace and goodness, is not a better foundation of comfort, and of an assurance of a gospel new-birth, than that which is founded on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change; which, if there be any such thing, is not easily distinguished from fancy and imagination; the working whereof we may well suppose to be more strong and powerful, while the person considers himself in the state of one who is admitted as a candidate for such a change, and is taught in due time to expect it?”
However unintelligible the latter part of this Query may be, does not the former part of it seem to imply, that these itinerants found the assurance of the gospel new-birth on this sudden and instantaneous change wrought on their hearers under their sermons, exclusive of a gradual improvement in grace and goodness afterwards! But is not this mere slander? For however they may humbly hope, that Sinners, when deeply impressed, may be suddenly and effectually wrought upon, yet how can it be proved that they reckon them real converts, till they see them bring forth the fruits of the Spirit, in doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with their God? Or if this was not the case, does not the author himself, if he holds baptismal regeneration, found his comfort on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change? And do not the greatest part of the poor souls now in England, go on secure that they shall be eternally happy, and yet have no better foundation of comfort, and assurance of a gospel new-birth, than that which is founded on the doctrine of a sudden and instantaneous change wrought upon them in baptism?
Is not our Author, my Lords, also in this Query, guilty of another egregious mistake! For the foundation of comfort which these itinerants lay and depend on is, the compleat and all-sufficient righteousness of Jesus, and the new birth or change wrought in the heart, is by them looked upon only as an evidence that the persons thus changed, have indeed gotten a foundation on this rock of ages, and consequently a sure and certain hope of a resurrection to eternal life. And is not all this, my Lords, easily distinguished from fancy and imagination? And does not our Author lead people to a wrong foundation for comfort, by directing them to look for it from “a gradual improvement in grace and goodness?” For, what says the Apostle, 1 Corinthians iii. 11. “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus,”—“who (as he speaks in the first chapter of the same epistle, verse 30.) is made unto us of God, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption?”
This foundation, as well as this sudden and instantaneous change, whether wrought in or after baptism, our Author, it is to be feared, is too great a stranger to: at least, he gives too great evidence, that he has made but little improvement in grace and goodness; for he asks in his 11th Query, page 13, “Whether, the frame of human nature fairly considered, the Author of the Whole Duty of Man, did not do better service to religion, in laying down rules to keep recreations of all kinds within the bounds of innocence, than they who now censure him, and absolutely deny that recreations of any kind, considered as such, are or can be innocent?”
What rules the Author of the Whole Duty of Man may have laid down to keep recreations of all kinds within the bounds of innocence, it may be needless here to enquire. Is it not sufficient, my Lords, to mention, that the holy scriptures (wherein the whole duty of man, and that too in respect both to faith and practice, is fully and really taught) lay down one golden universal rule for recreations and every thing else, that “Whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, we must do all to the glory of God?” Whatever recreations people take to the glory of God, these itinerants, my Lords, think are quite allowable: but if they are made use of meerly for self-pleasing, and not to God’s glory, nor to fit us for his service, they do affirm, that all such recreations neither are nor can be innocent. And if the Author of the Whole Duty of Man, or any other Author whatsoever, hath set any other bounds, or fixed any other rule, however fairly he may have considered the frame of human nature, is it not evident, that he has not fairly considered the frame and nature of true christianity? For does not that, my Lords, turn our whole lives into one continued sacrifice to God? And if we fairly consider the frame of human nature, how weak and frail it is, and how easily diverted from pursuing our one great end, are not those the greatest friends to religion, who caution people against leading themselves into temptations, or making use of any recreation that may put them out of a spiritual frame, and unfit them for the service of God? Is this going any further than the Apostle did, who so strictly cautions christians “not to grieve the Spirit of God, whereby they are sealed to the day of redemption?”
Our Author, under this head, has referred to a passage out of one of my Journals, wherein I gave an account of my being in some polite company at Maryland, who were disposed to cards; and also a passage out of my letter from New-Brunswick, occasioned, if I mistake not, by meeting a man who thought it allowable to play at cards in the Christmas holidays, from the liberty given him by the Author of the Whole Duty of Man. And will our Author allow playing at cards to be a lawful recreation for a christian? Is this one of the recreations of all kinds which may be kept within the bounds of innocence? Is it not a kind of casting lots? Has it not the appearance of evil? Will he not hear the church? And what says the 75th canon? “No ecclesiastical person shall at any time, other than for their honest necessities, resort to any taverns or alehouses, neither shall they board or lodge in any such places. Furthermore, they shall not give themselves to any base or servile labour, or to drinking or riot, spending their time idly by day or by night, playing at dice, cards, or tables, or any other unlawful game: but at all times convenient, they shall hear or read somewhat of the holy scriptures, or shall occupy themselves with some other honest study or exercise, always doing the things which shall appertain to honesty, and endeavouring to profit the church of God, having always in mind that they ought to excel all others in purity of life, and should be examples to the people to live well and christianly, under pain of ecclesiastical censures to be inflicted with severity, according to the qualities of their offences.” An excellent canon this! And may I not argue from it thus? Either this canon is founded upon the word of God, or it is not: if it be not, why is it not abrogated? if it be, why is it not put in practice? Why do the clergy encourage frequenting of taverns, alehouses, and gaming by their own example? Are not such practices in this canon supposed to be quite contrary to the purity of life and excellency of example which may be justly required from them? And if such things are unseemly in a clergyman, are they not in a degree equally unseemly in laymen, whose privilege as well as duty it is, to be “holy in all manner of conversation and godliness,” and who are universally commanded “to shine as lights in the world amidst a crooked and perverse generation?”
My Lords, might it not reasonably have been hoped, that your Lordships were too well acquainted with real and inward religion, to think that a soul born of God, and made partaker of a divine nature, can stoop so low, and act so unlike itself, as to seek for recreation in gaming? Does not the glorious and plenteous redemption, that great, inexpressibly great and present salvation, which the great High-priest and Apostle of our profession has purchased for us by shedding his dear heart’s blood, and whereby we are redeemed from this present evil world, set us above such trifling things as these, supposing they were not directly sinful? Are not christians “kings and priests unto God?” And is it not as much beneath the dignity of their heaven-born spirits, to stoop to so low an amusement as gaming of any kind, as ever it was beneath the dignity of the Roman Emperor to spend his time in the amusement of catching flies? Does not our Author, therefore, my Lords, by writing thus, strike at the very vitals of religion, and prove too plainly that he is a stranger to the power of the dear Redeemer’s resurrection? Need we, therefore, wonder at his 12th Query, page 12, wherein he enquires, “Whether the strong expressions which are found in their printed Journals, of extraordinary presences of God, directing and assisting them in a more immediate manner, do not need some testimonies of a divine mission, to clear them from the charge of enthusiasm?” Under this query our Author has also mentioned several passages of my Journals, extracted by my Lord of London, in his last pastoral letter against lukewarmness and enthusiasm, and has also been at great pains to extract many more out of my four last Journals, which have been printed since, and which, according to our Author, are more full of enthusiasm, if possible, than the three first? But does not this Author forget, that I answered his Lordship’s letter, and proved, that his Lordship was mistaken in his definition of enthusiasm; and that, according to his definition, I was no enthusiast? Did I not also prove, that the propositions on which his Lordship’s quotations were founded were false? Has his Lordship, or any one for him, been pleased to make any reply to that answer? Not as I have heard of. And therefore, was it not incumbent upon this Author, my Lords, to have disproved or invalidated my answer to his Lordship’s letter, before he could honourably mention the passages referred to therein, to prove me an enthusiast? But passing by this, with the other many irregularities which are justly charged upon this anonymous Author, if he asks “whether the strong expressions which are found in their printed Journals (I suppose he would have said his printed Journals, for I find under this Query no Journals referred to but mine) of extraordinary presences of God directing and assisting them in a more immediate manner, do not need some testimonies of a divine mission, to clear them from the charge of enthusiasm?” I would ask this Author again, “What testimonies he would have?” Can he bring any proof against the matters of fact recorded in these Journals? Or will he venture to affirm, that I did not feel the divine presence in an extraordinary manner, that is, more at one time than another? Or that I have not been directed in a more immediate manner, at certain times, when waiting upon God? Were not such-like queries put by the heathens to the primitive christians? And was not their answer, Monstrare nequeo, sentio tantum? I would further ask, what this Author means by a divine mission? Did not my Lord of Gloucester (for I must again repeat it) give me an apostolical one, when he said, “Receive thou the Holy Ghost by the imposition of our hands?” And can it be enthusiasm, or is there any thing extraordinary in saying, that I felt more of the influences of this Holy Ghost, and was assisted in a more immediate manner in my administrations at one time, than another? Or is it not more extraordinary (only indeed that it has been a good while too too common) that the Right Reverend the Bishops should take upon them to confer the Holy Ghost, and the Reverend the Clergy profess they are inwardly moved by it, and yet charge every expression they meet with, wherein his blessed influences are spoken of as felt and experienced, with being downright enthusiasm? But what shall we say? “The natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit: they are foolishness unto him, neither can he understand them: because they are spiritually discerned.” What if some of the expressions, my Lords, in the Journals are strong? Does that prove them enthusiastical? Or what if feeling the presence of God, and being directed in a more immediate manner, be something extraordinary to our Author, does it therefore follow that it is so to others? Or is this Author like minded with the Right Reverend the Bishop and the Reverend the Clergy of the diocese of Litchfield and Coventry, who reckon the indwelling, and inward witnessing of, as also praying and preaching by the Spirit, among the karismata, the miraculous gifts conferred on the primitive church, and which have long since ceased? If so, no wonder that the expressions referred to are strong and extraordinary to him. But, my Lords, may I not beg leave to tell this Author, that these itinerant preachers have not so learnt Christ? No, they believe that Jesus is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever: and that he is faithful, who hath said to his Apostles, and in them to all succeeding truly christian ministers, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” Consequently they believe the Comforter will abide with them for ever, witnessing with their spirits that they are children of God; leading them by a diligent search of the holy scriptures into all truth; guiding them together with the word, the voice of friends and Providence, in all circumstances by his counsel; giving them utterance when called to speak to the people from God, and helping their infirmities, and assisting them in prayer when called to speak to God for the people. Inwardly moved by this Spirit, and not by any hopes of human grandeur or preferment, these itinerants, my Lords, first took on them the administration of the church; and his blessed influences they have from time to time happily experienced, as thousands whose eyes have been opened to discern spiritual things, can testify. And being without cause denied the use of their brethrens pulpits, and having obtained help from God, they continue to this day, witnessing both to small and great the grand doctrines of the Reformation, justification by faith alone in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, and the necessity of the indwelling of the Spirit in order to be made meet to be partakers of the heavenly inheritance, among all them that are sanctified. In doing thus they know of no “wholesome rules, wisely and piously established by the powers spiritual and temporal,” Query 9th, page 12. which they have violated: or should they be commanded by the whole bench of Bishops to speak no more of this doctrine,—they have an answer ready, “We cannot but speak the things that we know.” We take this to be an ungodly admonition; and therefore, “whether it be right in the sight of God, to obey man rather than God, judge ye.” And though for so doing, they should be mobbed, as they frequently have been, and though God be not the author of confusion or tumult, as our Author would have it, page 12, yet they know of one who was mobbed himself upon a like account, and commanded Timothy to approve himself a minister of God in tumults. Being sensible of the indolence and unorthodoxy of the generality of the clergy, they think they are sufficiently warranted by the example of the Prophets of the Old, and of Jesus Christ and his Apostles in the New-Testament, (whatsoever our Author may say, Query 8th page 11.) to bear a faithful testimony against them. And being called by the Providence of God abroad, after their unworthy labours had been blessed at home, they have judged it meet, right, and their bounden duty, from time to time, to publish accounts of what God had done for their own and other people’s souls: which, though despised by some, and esteemed enthusiastical by others, have been owned to the instruction and edification of thousands. But whether this may be properly called “open and public boasting, unbecoming the modesty and self-denial of a minister of the gospel, especially one who would be thought to carry on his ministry under the immediate guidance of the blessed Spirit,” (as our Author intimates in his last Query of this 2d Part); or whether they were written with a single eye to the Redeemer’s glory, they are willing to leave to the determination of that God, to whom all hearts are open, all desires are known, and from whom no secrets are hid. I could here enlarge; but having detained your Lordships too long already, I am,
Your Lordships most obedient son and servant,