72. But waving the things that are past: which of you now convinceth us of sin? Which of you (I here more especially appeal to my brethren, the clergy) can personally convict us of any ungodliness or unholiness of conversation? Ye know in your own hearts, (all that are candid men, all that are not utterly blinded with prejudice) that we labour to have a conscience void of offence both toward God and toward man. Brethren, I would to God that in this ye were even as we. But indeed (with grief I speak it) ye are not. There are among yourselves ungodly and unholy men; openly, undeniably such: drunkards, gluttons, returners of evil for evil, liars, swearers, prophaners of the day of the Lord. Proof hereof is not wanting, if ye require it. Where then is your zeal against these? A clergyman, so drunk he can scarce stand or speak, may, in the presence of a thousand people[¹], set upon another clergyman of the same church, both with abusive words and open violence. And what follows? Why, the one is still allowed to dispense the sacred signs of the body and blood of Christ. But the other is not allowed to receive them.——Because he is a field preacher.
[¹] At Epworth, in Lincolnshire.
73. O ye pillars and fathers of the church, are these things well-pleasing to him, who hath made you overseers over that flock which he hath purchased with his own blood? O that ye would suffer me to boast myself a little! Is there not a cause? Have ye not compelled me? Which of your clergy are more unspotted in their lives, which more unwearied in their labours, than those whose names ye cast out as evil, whom ye count as the filth and off-scouring of the world? Which of them is more zealous to spend and be spent, for the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Or, who among them is more ready to be offered up for their flock upon the sacrifice and service of their faith?
74. Will ye say, (as the historian of Catiline) Si sic pro patria! If this were done in defence of the church, and not in order to undermine and destroy it! That is the very proposition I undertake to prove, That “we are now defending the church, even the church of England, in opposition to all those who either secretly undermine, or more openly attempt to destroy it.”
75. That we are Papists, (we, who are daily and hourly preaching that very doctrine which is so solemnly anathematized by the whole church of Rome) is such a charge, that I dare not waste my time in industriously confuting it. Let any man of common sense only look on the title pages of the sermons we have lately preached at Oxford, and he will need nothing more to shew him the weight of this senseless, shameless accusation;—unless he can suppose the governors both of Christ-Church and Lincoln-College, nay, and all the university, to be Papists too.
76. You yourself can easily acquit us of this; but not of the other part of the charge. You still think we are secretly undermining, if not openly destroying the church.
What do you mean by the church? A visible church (as our article defines it) is, A company of faithful (or believing) people: [a]cætus credentium]. This is the essence of a church: and the properties thereof are, (as they are described in the words that follow) Among whom the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered. Now then (according to this authentic account) what is The church of England? What is it indeed, but the faithful people, the true believers in England? It is true, if these are scattered abroad, they come under another consideration. But when they are visibly joined, by assembling together to hear the pure word of God preached, and to eat of one bread, and drink of one cup, they are then properly the visible church of England.
77. It were well if this were a little more considered by those, who so vehemently cry out, The church! the church! (as those of old, The temple of the Lord! the temple of the Lord!) not knowing what they speak, nor whereof they affirm. A provincial or national church, according to our article, is, the true believers of that province or nation. If these are dispersed up and down, they are only a part of the invisible church of Christ. But if they are visibly joined by assembling together to hear his word and partake of his supper, they are then a visible church, such as the church of England, France, or any other.
78. This being premised, I ask, How do we undermine or destroy the church? The provincial, visible church of England? The article mentions three things as essential to a visible church: 1st, Living faith, without which indeed there can be no church at all, neither visible nor invisible: 2dly, Preaching (and consequently hearing) the pure word of God, else that faith would languish and die: and, 3dly, A due administration of the sacraments, the ordinary means whereby God increaseth faith. Now come close to the question: in which of these points do we undermine or destroy the church?
Do we shut the door of faith? Do we lessen the number of believing people in England? Only remember what faith is, according to our homilies, (viz. “A sure trust and confidence in God, that through the merits of Christ my sins are forgiven, and I reconciled to the favour of God,”) And we appeal to all mankind, do we destroy this faith, which is the life and soul of the church? Is there, in fact, less of this faith, in England, than there was before we went forth! I think, this is an assertion, which the father of lies himself will scarce dare to utter or maintain.