Apology in Behalf of Mr Whitefield

YOU will not tax me with proclaiming my own Goodness, if I declare to you that I think, in this Day of Controversy and Heat among us, I have both in my public and private Conduct (for the general Tenor of it • study'd to do my own Business, and made it my Care to follow th • Things that make for Peace, with Edification. As saith the Scripture, Therefore the Prudent shall keep Silence in that Time; for it is an evil Time. Yet saith the true Proverb, To every Thing there is a Season, and a Time to every Purpose under the S •• : — a Time to keep Silence, and a Time to speak. And in the latter Season, I think, none can justly be blamed for speaking, though' with Openness and Freedom, provided they speak the Words of Truth and Soberness; neither turning aside to vain Jangling and perverse Disputing, no • bringing a railing Accusation, as the manner of some is, when two warmly engaged, and over-eagerly pursuing their Point.—I am deeply affected, to see the Spirit of Envying and Strife • which brings Confusion and every evil Work • risen to such a dreadful Height, as at this Juncture: Nor would I willingly be the Instrument or Occasion of adding Fuel to this unhappy Fire of Contention, which has done us such unspeakable Mischief already, has so retarded the successful Progress of the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, and given so much Occasion to the Adversary to speak reproachfully. Behold, The Tongue of Man is a Fire, a World of Iniquity: a little Member, yet an 〈◊〉 Evil: The Tongue can no Man tame. But with GOD all Things are possible; yea, He is able to subdue all Things to HIMSELF. And 'tis my Heart's Desire and Prayer,—that the enthroned JESUS, the Prince of Peace, and the God of all Grace, the only wise God our Savior, will be pleased to interpose by his almighty Spirit and Providence, to command Peace, and to revive his Work in the midst of these declining Years!—O that the Children and Servants of God, who love Jerusalem and pray for her Peace, may at such a Time as this is more earnestly watch and pray that they enter not into Temptation; and if any Brother is over taken with a Fault, be disposed to restore such an one with the Spirit of M •• kness, considering Themselves, le • t they also be tempted: and not being ignorant of Satan's Devices, l •• t he get an Advantage against them, and lest the Sun go down upon their Wrath! —It should seem, it cannot but strike and wound every tender Heart, and may well make us blush and weep, to hear or read the keen Invectives, the bitter Reproaches, the almost cruel M ••• ings, that are sometimes interchanged, even between wise and geed Men, in their angry Contests: which, it's to be feared, generally have little better Effects, than to still further inflame their Animosities, and widen their Distance from one another; and to expose both Parties to have their Soul exceedingly filled with the Contempt of them that are at Ease, the Ignorant and Profane. How natural is the Reflection, "If Men suffer themselves to be carried away at this Rate by their Passions, then Farewell to all the Reason and Charity of Christians! "

I must freely acknowledge, Sir, they were such Considerations as these, which have restrained me from bearing any Part in the Paper-War among us, of so long Continuance. Nor am I for War, in my present Undertaking; but acted (as I trust) by the Principles of Peace and brotherly Love, with a View in particular to the satisfying and settling your Mind in the Truth, as well as to the vindicating Mr. Whitefield' s Name, in Relation to some Things suggested to his Prejudice, in the late anonymous LETTER to him; which, I perceived by you, in our last Conversation, had made some Impressions on you to his Disadvantage, and I suspect, to your own Hurt.—You may remember, in what Manner you expressed your free Thoughts to me, concerning that Performance; viz. That the Author's Arguments are conclusive and unanswerable, if his Facts might be depended on, and the Grounds of his Reasoning have no Fallacy attending them.—This ( Sir ) has put me upon a fresh reading this Letter. —And I must confe • s, when I realise the high Nature of the Accusations here insinuated against Mr. W — d, and when I reflect on the popular Dress the Author appears in, together with the Effect his plausible Piece has already had on you, and the repeated Challenges I have heard made upon it, since I saw you, as if it were the most nervous Performance quite decisive, and not admitting of an Answer; I incline to think an Answer due to it • more perhaps than to any other in the like Kind, that I have seen) especially to those Parts of it, that contain Matters not so commonly objected, and which seem to be the principal Difficulties, that have given Rise to your present Uneasiness, with regard to Mr. W — d.

For I observe, that all the more obvious Topics of Objection and Invective against him, in former Use, being grown quite vulgar and trite, by such frequent Repetition, the Author of the LETTER has struck up certain New-Lights, and invented some singular Themes of Declamation, of a specious Appearance 〈◊〉 dwelling chiefly and first upon these, but more cursorily touching on the others in the Close. For which Reason, and because they are the former, that appear of the greatest Weight to me, as well as what you want an Answer to, I propose therefore at present to confine my Reflections to these; waving all Remarks on the concluding Pages, and passing over what may be exceptionable in the Author's Introduction.

The main Scope of his Letter is the Trial of Mr. Whitefield' s Spirit, in Point of Christian Simplicity and moral Honesty; which our Author seems to think not discoverable in some Parts of his public Conduct.—If I know myself, Sir, I would not be a blind Bigot to any Man, the wisest and best upon Earth; or have his Person in Admiration, because of Advantage, in any Respect: And as for Mr. W — d, I think I feel in me a proper Temper to see Mistakes and Failings in him as soon as in another.—Nor can I but highly approve every due Testimony against all Dissimulation, especially in sacred Affairs; and justify the contending for Simplicity and godly Sincerity, as an Essential in the Character of a Christian, and eminently of a Minister, who ought to be an Example to the Flock. And I must acknowledge, if our Author carries this Point against Mr. W — d, he will give the most thorough Stab to his Name; and must shake, if not demolish, his Interest with the unbias'd Part of Mankind.—But then the Use we should make of this Reflection, is to treat a Point so delicate, and of such Importance, with the utmost Caution to avoid evil Surmisings, and to exemplify that Charity which thinketh no Evil, which believeth all Things, hopeth all Things, for the best.—The Consequence being so vast, we should well consider what Premises we draw it from, that they be good and sound and clear, a sufficient Foundation to support the heavy Conclusion. And surely in a Case, of this critical Nature and of so much Moment, nothing short of undoubted Law and Evidence, nothing short of incontestible Rule and Fact, viewed in the fairest comparative Light, without Partiality, and without Hypocrisy, can be valid and just Grounds to form our Judgment upon. How our Author has acquitted himself in his Trial of Mr. W — d' s Case, you will know my Opinion by the Sequel of this Review.

The main Thing to be examined into, is the Business of the Clergy-Subscriptions and Promises (made at entering into holy Orders) compared with some late Instances of Mr. Whitefield' s Conduct; wherein our Author suspects him guilty of the most culpable Inconsistence, such as bewrays

—These were high Charges indeed, if brought in Form, and need very full and positive Evidence to gain them Credit with reasonable and impartial Judges. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation, but before two or three Witnesses. —Aware of this, our Author therefore deals little in formal and direct Accusations, but proceeds generally by Way of Inquiry and Insinuation: exhibiting his Grounds of Jealousy, and calling upon Mr. W — d to clear up his Innocence, or else confess his Guilt; though, it appears plain upon the Face of his Performance, he thinks it's the latter only, that he has any Reason to expect. Whereas, I am persuaded, the Gentleman would rather have seen Room for the f • rmer, had he on this Occasion been sufficiently disposed to 〈◊〉 , which always studies a favorable Construction of Things, and had be with a little closer Attention looked into the Constitution of the Church of England, the Nature of her Clerical Subscriptions and Declarations, and the true Extent of the Obligations, in Consequence hereof, to Ministerial Conformity. I have had some Occasions formerly, as well as at this Time, to examine into these Matters, and after the best Inquiries I have been able to make, Things donit appear to me, in the same • ight as to our Author. It seems, either he or I must labor of some strange Confusion of Thought upon these Things; or we must have a different Idea of Contradiction and Inconsistency; or else we must, one or other, be under an unhappy Bias of Partiality▪— Judi ••• Lecter.

Our Author first singles out the 26 th of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, as what • e shrewdly suspects Mr. W — d guilty of having contradicted, by some Passages in one of his printed Journals, as recited in the Letter before us. And the Gentleman, "to give a clear View of the Difficulty which he wants to have solv'd," contrives two distinct Columns, for the Article and the Extract, setting the one over against the other. And fancying (I suppose) that he now had Mr. W — d fast, to be unavoidably ground as between two 〈◊〉 though' without any Attempt to put them in Mot • on ) he leaves him in this critical Situation, presently passing over to a new Case. But indeed I much wonder how he should dream, that merely these collateral Transcripts • nothing 〈◊〉 in themselves, and profoundly at rest ) as he has left 'em, should do any great Execution; or that, even with the help of distinguished Types, they should so much as give a clear View of the Difficulty, without the further Assistance of some superadded Glosses, Comments, or proper Notes of Illustration.—I must own, I cannot see at present any other than a me • 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 Contradistinction between our Author's two Columns, without any inward C •• trariety, or contradictory Opposition. For I imagine, I see a good intrinsic Harmony subsisting between the Article and the printed Words; and likely to subsist still, if no stronger Efforts be made, to give it an Interruption.

I truly wish, that our Author would revise his two Columns, compare and scan them with his best Powers of Criticism, and try if he can fairly make out the least real Contradiction between them, in any Part, Paragraph, Sentence, Lin • , or Word. For myself, I have tried all my Skill upon 'em, and am quite at a Loss where the Inconsistency lies.—Among which of the various Types in the Extract (or printed Words of Mr. W — d ) we must look to find a Contradiction to the Article, set in Opposition to it, the Author has not been so kind as particularly to direct us. And as for what is in the Roman •• tter, I am sensible of no 〈◊〉 or Discord there. We must look for it then in the 〈◊〉 : it must be here, or nowhere. But I believe, it will puzzle a good Genius, to trace out any real Contradiction here. Our Author indeed seems to draw our Eyes to this Part of the Extract, and to indigitate a single Passage, as the Capital one, by putting it in great Letters. 'It is that noted Interrogatory,—FOR HOW CAN DEAD MEN • EG • T LIVING CHILDREN?—But at present I think this capable of an innocent Meaning, and well consistent with Mr. W — d' s Subscription to the Article.

You are sensible, Sir, that Rhetorical Figures and Flourishes are allowed a candid Construction in all Authors, sacred or profane. And why should this be made an Exception, and meet with such hard Measures? Why should this be so amplify'd upon in a Variety of Censure and unfavourable Descant? Some objecting, that it carries an absurd or 〈◊〉 Allusion, and implies a false Hypothesis in Divinity, as if for (spiritually) dead Ministers to be instrumental of begetting Souls unto Newness of Life, through the Gospel, were absolutely a moral Impossibility, equal to the natural Impossibility there is of a (naturally) dead Man's begetting living Children; so making all Success of the Gospel, in the Nature of Thing • , essentially dependant on some inherent Principle or Virtue in the Administrator, and 〈◊〉 the the Holy One of Israel, as if it were not in his Power and Prerogative to bless his own appointed Means by whomsoever dispensed.—But surely such a Construction of Mr. W — d' s Word's must appear altogether 〈◊〉 and captions, if we consider how it directly 〈◊〉 the whole Tenor of his Preaching and Praying, so full in the Acknowledgment of human Impotence, the Sovereignty of divine Grace, and irresistible Energy of the Spirit of Holiness. Nay, even in the very Extract itself that our Author presents us with, Mr. W — d to make the largest Concession 〈◊〉 could, says, That GOD may convert People by th • Devil, if He pleases, and 〈◊〉 He may by unconverted Ministers. But then it follows, I believe He seldom makes Use of either of them for this Purpose. —And here indeed we have a 〈◊〉 to the true Meaning of the figurative Query above; which, in a candid View o • it, can only import, It's exceeding unlikely, that GOD should otherwise than seldom make unconverted Ministers the Instruments of converting Sinners. This, Sir, I do and must insist on as a natural and unforc'd Gloss upon the controverted Passage, and conveys (I believe) the very Idea of the Writer. And why should his Words be put upon the Rack and 〈◊〉 , to make them confess a different Sense, inconsistent too with the Scope of the Context, and with his avow'd Principles, only to fix an Odium upon him, as either erroneous, or absurd, or inconsistent!—I cannot help observing here, it would be the most abusive wresting of his Words, to insinuate, that he asserts the total Uselesness of unconverted Ministers, and puts them on a Par with the Devil himself in Respect of Service to the Church of God. For his printed Words speak of the Success of such Ministers with Regard only to the converting People; and he may consistently enough with denying that, own their Usefulness in other Respects. Nevertheless, he has not denied even that universally and absolutely. And although he speaks of God's seldom making Use of unconverted Ministers to the End of converting People, and at the same Time speaks also of the Devil' s being seldom made Use o • to that End, yet he may be far from designing to set them on a Level, in Regard of Usefulness to that Purpose. The blessed God may overrule the Devil' s Temptations sometimes, though' but seldom, to subserve the Ends of Conviction and Conversion; and He may succeed the Ministrations of dead Preachers sometimes, though' also but seldom, to promote the same Ends; there may be indeed no great Frequency, or Commonness, in one Case, or toother: And yet there may be a vast Disproportion between them, as to the Degree of Rareness, in Favor of the latter. It must be acknowledged therefore a disingenuous Turn given Mr. W — d' s Expressions, to represent them either as comparing unconverted Ministers to the Devil in Point of general Usefulness, or as equalling the Devil to them in Point of Successfulness to the great End of converting People, in particular.

Nor can I look on our Author as acting the generous Part in pretending a Contradiction between Mr▪ W — d' s Words and an Article of the Church, with a View to fasten upon him the odious Imputation of falsifying his solemn Subscription, —without so much as letting us know in what Light he took Things, and where he saw the Contradiction. For this, I confess, does not show itself to me, after all my Searches and Researches, to find it. An Appearance indeed there may be, to an unwary and superficial, or prejudiced Reader, of an Inconsistence between the Article, and Mr. W — d's printed Words; but yet taking both in their real Scope, and allowing them a fair Comparison, I am of Opinion, even this Appearance of a Contradiction must immediately vanish.

But not contenting myself to imitate our Author' s Example, I am willing, in the most explicit Manner, to show the Grounds of my Opinion, by descending to Particulars, and entering into the very Bowels of each Column with my Examination. For Instance, the Article speaking of evil Men, asserts, "We MAY use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word, and in receiving the Sacraments." Nor does the Extract from Mr. W — d contradict this.—Again, The Article says, "Neither is the EFFECT OF CHRIST's ORDINANCE TAKEN AWAY BY THEIR WICKEDNESS."—And, looking on the Words in their original View and genuine Intendment, neither does the Extract advance any Thing, either explicitly or implicitly, contrary to this. Mr. W — d indeed has said, he believes that GOD SELDOM makes Use of unconverted Ministers for the Purpose of converting People. However, this includes an implicit Concession, that that is sometimes the Case in Fact. But, supposing he had shown his Opinion in the most universal Terms, saying, that he believed GOD never makes Use of such for the mentioned Purpose; yet in what Shape will our Author make this to contradict the Article? For you well know, Sir, that Contradictions are always ad idem, o • refer to one Thing, and this in the same Respect. Whereas, the Article and the printed Words are not speaking ad idem, but in their direct Reference are concerning different Matters: which if the Gentleman had observed, I think he could not have suspected a Repugnancy in the Case. Mr. W — d, it's plain, has his Eye in the Words quoted from him, to Ministers only under the Notion of Preachers, and speaks of dead Men's Preaching being seldom (and exceeding unlikely to be commonly) made Use of to the End of converting People: nor is he in the Opinion of a Real baptismal Regeneration or sacramental Conversion. Whereas now the Article, though' it occasionally mentions the Word, has in the whole of it its primary View to the Sacraments: and in that Part of it where the Emphasis lies, and on which our Author seems to lay his chief Stress, by placing his Capitals here, does evidently point to the Sacraments only; which the Church of England ( • 'm persuaded) does not declare were instituted for converting Ordinances, but designed for the perfecting of the Saints, the Heirs of Promise. To such (says the Article) the Unworthiness of the Administrator does not evacuate the Sacraments▪ or hinder their profiting. The Words run thus, "Neither is the Effect of Christ's Ordinance taken away by their Wickedness, or the Grace of God's Gift diminished, FROM SUCH AS BY FAITH AND RIGHTLY DO RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS ministered unto them, WHICH be effectual because of CHRIST's Institution and Promise, although they be ministered by evil Men." —You see, Sir, WHO they be, that the Article says, Christ's Ordinances do not become ineffectual to, thro' the Wickedness of evil Ministers, namely, Such as by Faith and rightly do receive the same: and to such they are effectual, not by any Virtue in him that doth administer, but only because of Christ's Institution and Promise. The Lord Jesus Christ will own his Institutions, and fulfil his Promise to his faithful People. The Minister's Sins shall not hinder Christ's Graces, nor lessen them, to his People. "For (as Bp. B • v • ri • ge says upon it, in his Exposition of this Article ) be the Minister worthy or unworthy, if I come with Faith to an Ordinance, I am sure to go with Grace from it." Now if you extend this to the Word preached, the Article must suppose it preached orthodoxly; and Mr. W — d has never denied, that the Word, • oundly and orthodoxly preached, will profit, where it is mixed with Faith in them that • ear it, though' it be an evil Man that preaches it.—However, you cannot but perceive, Sir, that it is only the Sacraments are respected in this Part of the Article, which our Author has distinguished by Capitals, as what perhaps he lays the Weight of the Argument upon: And the true Scope of the Article here is plainly this, and nothing else, that the Sacraments are not invalidated to the worthy Partakers, by any personal Demerits or sinful Defects and Faults in the Administrator; that the spiritual Benefit and internal Effect of the Sacraments, as no depending on the spiritual State, internal Disposition or moral Character of the Administrator, is not by Means of his personal Faultiness taken away, or at all diminished▪ from such as by Faith and Rightly do receive the same.

'It is a known Maxim, Occasio Legis indicat & mentem Legislatoris & sensum Legis. The Occasion interpre •• the Article, which (as Bp. Burnet observes) was the Heat of some in the Beginning of the Reformation; that being offended at the Vices of the Roman Clergy, revived the Conceit of the Donatists; who considered the Sacraments as the Answer of Prayers, and so since the Prayers of a wicked Man are an Abomination to God, they thought the Virtue of these Actions depended wholly on him that officiated.

Further more, This is confirmed by the TITLE of this Article; which stands thus, Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinder not the Effects of the SACRAMENTS. The Title is wont to be appealed to in such Cases, for the true Purport and Design of what follows in the Body of any Law, Canon, Chapter, or Article. And I must observe, had our Author not left out the Title of this 26th Article, I am prone to think, every common Reader must have been aware of the Fallacy of the two Columns, and would easily have seen thro' the thin Appearance.—I must add, Nor can I look upon our Author as acting so fair a Part, in secreting from our People (little acquainted with the Book of Articles ) one whole Paragraph, when he speaks of "setting down the Article, " by which one would suppose he had done it at full Length. For by thus mutilating it, he has left out what is added in the last Paragraph very fitly and seasonably, to preventany Abuse of the former; and what, I must acknowledge, seems to countenance Mr. W — d' s Zeal against evil and unworthy Ministers. The Words therefore I think proper to have restored, and will insert here. The Article concludes thus; "Nevertheless it appertaineth to the Discipline of the Church, that Enquiry be made of Evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have Knowledge of their Offences, and finally being found guilty by Judgment, be deposed." —Upon which Bishop Beveridge has the following Remark.

—And Bishop Burnet (in his Exposition of the 39 Articles, remarks upon it) that —Accordingly Mr. W — d is for having all prudent Steps taken in Pursuance of this last Paragraph of the Article, that evil Ministers may be inquired out, detected and convicted, if possible, and then silenced.—I hope, our Author would not object, that Mr. Whitefield' s unconverted Ministers and the Article' s Evil Ministers are not the same, and that there may be a Clash here. No▪ for as to the Article, this must be interpreted in a Consistence with the Rest, which everywhere use, as equivalent, these Terms in Description of evil Men, viz. " Carnal Persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, — "The Wicked and such as be void of a lively Faith, and the like. Now these Characters applied to Ministers, do constitute Mr. W — d' s dead Men, do describe his unconverted Ministers. I suppose, none will think him so void of Reason, as not to allow that some unconverted Ministers may be such very refined, consummate Hypocrites, and make such a fair Sh • w in the Flesh, by Means of an orthodox Head and regular Practice, as to render a judicial Conviction of them impracticable; and where this is in Reality the Case with any, that such must be resigned to the Judgment of God, who only trieth the Heart, and knoweth the Secrets of Men. However, whereas he declares himself verily persuaded, that the Generality of Preachers talk of an unknown unfelt Christ, he has therefore on some Occasions opened his Mouth boldly against unconverted Ministers: giving it as his Opinion, that the Reason why Congregations have been so dead, is because they have had dead Men preaching to them. —Now, As to the Grounds of his Conduct, or how far his Sentiment may be just and well-founded, I am not obliged in this Place to inquire: for the Argument we are upon, calls me only to consider, whether the one or the other be inconsistent with his Subscription, and contrary to the Article, which our Author has confronted him with. And for my Part, on a sedate View of the Matter, according to all the Lights I have been capable of placing it in, I cannot discern the pretended Inconsistence, nor believe Mr. Whitefield and his Subscription to be at opposite Angles. For, as to his Conduct, in preaching after a general Manner against unconverted Ministers, this surely is rather a Proof of his Adherence to his Subscription, as it manifests his being in Earnest to have the genuine Drift of the Article, in its last Paragraph, faithfully prosecuted, by all due Inquiry, and Discipline, in Relation to evil Ministers.

And as for his Sentiment touching the immediate natural or moral Reason of Congregations having been so dead in Times past, namely, their having had dead Men to preach to them, neither do I at present see any Variance between this and the Article. If Mr. W — d' s Opinion in the Case implies any Contradiction to the Article, I think it must be to one or other of the following Clauses in it: where yet, for my own Part, I must confess, I am sensible of no Clash. For Mr. W — d' s assigning such a Reason, as above said, does by no Means imply but that in some Cases, agreeable to the Article, "We MAY use the Ministry of evil Men:" And indeed consonant to this is his own Practice, as well as avow'd Principle.—Nor yet do's his said Reason imply, in Opposition to the Article, that " the Effect of Christ's Ordinances is taken away by their Wickedness, or the Grace of God's Gifts diminished, FROM SUCH as by FAITH and RIGHTLY do receive the SACRAMENTS." So stands the Article: But yet, Sir, if you please, you have my Leave to subjoin also the Word preached; and Mr. W — d' s Consent too, I doubt not,—with this Provis • (which you must necessarily suppose implied in the Article ) that the Preaching be adjusted to the Standard of Scripture, and conformable to the Doctrine of the Church of England, particularly in her Articles. For as the Case of heterodox or false Teachers is justly to be supposed an Exception, under that general Clause in the Article, We may use the Ministry of evil Men: So when the Preachers Wickedness lies in their bringing in 〈◊〉 Heresies, be sure it cannot rationally be supposed but this must stand an excepted Case, when the Article says of evil Men,—Neither is the Effect of Christ's Ordinance taken away by their Wickedness. —Nevertheless, where the Word is rightly preached, though' by evil Men. Mr. W — d has never, that I can find, asserted the Effect of Christ's Ordinance to be taken away by their Wickedness, totally and absolutely, with Reference even to the Conversion of Sinners. His printed Words evidently point to a partial Success of the Word, and suppose it actually existent in the present Case. The Reason why Congregations have been SO dead, says he, is because they have had dead Men preaching to them. You 〈◊〉 , he speaks but of a partial Deadness in Congregations, which implies a Concession of some Instances of Life among them, and consequently bespeaks some Degree of Success attending even dead Men's 〈◊◊〉 them. —But still, supposing he had asserted the universal 〈◊〉 of such Men's Preaching, in Regard of the Conversion of Sinners, what is that to the Article, which (as I observed before) refers only to the Edification of Saints? —Does Mr. W — d anywhere say, that the Effect of Christ's Ordinances is taken away by their Wickedness, or the Grace of God's Gifts diminished, FROM SUCH as by FAITH and RIGHTLY do receive them! No; I believe, I may assert it in the strongest Manner, that where the God of all Grace gives to any the hearing Ear and understanding Heart, working in them sincere Faith, RIGHTLY TO RECEIVE the Word (rightly dispensed) Mr. W — d never has denied the Possibility of such People's getting the full Effect of Christ's Ordinance, even under the deadest Preacher in the World

Upon the whole, Sir, it appears to me, and I hope does by this Time to you, in a very convincing Light, that our Author' s two Columns donit in the least contravene one another, but rest together at full Agreement, in a State of entire Inaction, though put by him in a militant Posture.—You must allow me to observe to you, It is therefore a va •• Imagination in our Author, to suppose that Mr. W — d, while bearing a faithful Testimony against some of the Church-Clergy for contradicting the Articles they have subscrib'd to, is at the same Time but lashing himself for violating his own Subscription.—And I may now seasonably express my Resentmen • of it as a gross Inconsistence in our Author, that when he had opened his Letter with the Profession only to "propose a few Things in the Spirit of LOVE and MEEKNESS," he should presently in the same Page breathe a different Spirit, and fall upon Mr. W — d with hasty and harsh Censures, applying to him with that View Texts of holy Scripture; and this too before he would "at the Trouble" to point out the Facts, and lay Matter of Conviction before him. Nay, in this Instance which we have been considering, he has not (though' he had professed to do it) so much as "taken the Trouble to show him wherein" particularly he suspects him not "clear of Blame," that he "might have a fair Occasion to justify himself, and remove all Ground of Clamour against him upon this Head." You must acknowledge it, Sir, not so fair Management in our Author to insinuate a Contradiction between the Article and the Extract he has made from Mr. W — d, and yet at the same Time to neglect doing his proper Office as an Opponent, i. e. first a Specification of the particular Expressions, in which he thinks the Contradiction lies, and then arguing it out in the best Manner he could. This would have been Scholar- • ike. But whether from an Affection not to verbalise, or whether from a Presumption that the Case was too plain to make many Words about, or whatever was the Cause, so it has happened, there's a profound Silence here; the Gentleman having totally omitted both the proper stating of "the Difficulty he wanted to have solv'd," and of Consequence all debating or descanting upon it. By which unaccountable Management he has imposed an unreasonable Task upon his Respondent: putting him to this complicated Labor; first to search critically thro' the whole for the Place where it was possible any fanciful Brain might imagine something adversative between the two columns; then accurately to examine and compare every suspectable Passage, Line, or Word; and finally to reason distinctly on the whole.—It's not unlikely, Sir, this has given Occasion for the drawing out the present Vindication of Mr. W — d to a Length exceeding what might have been needful, had our Author (if I may be allowed to borrow some of his own Words here) "dealt fairly and openly, letting the World know his real Sentiments upon this Matter," with the particular Grounds of them; which "I cannot but think became him as and honest Man," in an Affair of so great Nicety, and equal Importance, whereon his Brother's Reputation, as a Minister and a Christian, has even by his own Acknowledgement such a Dependance.

You will therefore excuse me, Sir, that I have detained you thus long on our Author' s first Head of Accusation, or Suspicion: and allow me to say, I think I have given all reasonable Satisfaction to every Doubt on that Head.—After the two Columns have been thus scrutinis'd in their various Parts, and 〈◊〉 considered in a comparative View, it seems to me impossible but that you should see, all Pretences of Mr. Whitefield' s having violated his Subscriptions, in our Author' s first Instance, are utterly superseded.—Nay, I hope, this Gentleman himself is ready now, upon cool Reflection, to confess Mr. W — d "clear of Blame," and to acknowledge his own Mistake, in suggesting that there was any just "Ground of Clamour against him on this Head."—But I am more confident, that every indifferent Judge, free from Pre-engagements, will be ready to acquit Mr. W — d, as " an honest Man, and acting a consistent Part, " thus far.—May he never be found acting a less consistent Part!—And may it be the common Care of us all, whether Ministers or People, to approve ourselves equally "consistent upright Christians"! Looking diligently lest any Man fail of the Grace of God, whether as a dead Preacher, or a dead Professor; —Characters, alas, too common everywhere!

Thus I take Leave of you, Sir, for the present; adjourning my Considerations on our Author' s next Instance to another Opportunity. And in the mean Time believe me to be,

The Second LETTER.

THIS waits on you with some further Observations, on the late printed LETTER to Mr. Whitefield, objecting to some of his Measures, and calling upon him to vindicate his Conduct, or confess his Faults. I have spoken sufficiently to the first Fact there alleged against him: And as there is nothing of Connection between that and the others, I have no Need of repeating any Thing already said, to introduce my Remarks on our Author' s second Objection.

In the next Place then, you observe, Sir, he excepts against Mr. W — d' s Conduct in publicly praying, and administering the Sacrament, without any Regard to the Form prescribed in the Book of Common-Prayer. Our Author suspects him to be herein acting, not a consistent, but a wicked insincere Part; and fears, this his Practice is an open Violation of what he subscrib'd and promised at his Ordination, and afterwards solemnly, and repeatedly sealed his Approbation of at the blessed Sacrament.

But, my Friend, as you are not wont to be easily imposed upon with popular Insinuations, with mere Sophisms, or with Arguments more ad Pompam, than ad Pugnam: so I shall much wonder, if the Declamation upon this Head appears to you to have any real Weight in it, after it has passed a proper Examination. For as pathetic and peremptory as our Author is here, I very much doubt whether he has not missed the true Meaning of the Church-Clergy's Subscription and Declaration he talks so much of,—as expounded even by Themselves; and whether he has sufficiently considered the true Force and Extent of the Obligation resulting therefrom, in Relation to their approving the Common-Prayer-Book, and using the Form in the said Book prescribed, in public Prayer and Administration of Sacraments, AND NONE OTHER.

The first Step necessary to deciding any Question, is to adjust and settle the Meaning of the Terms. And possibly, in the Subscription or Declaration abovesaid, it may admit of some Debate, what is the genuine Import and Intent of the concluding Words, NONE OTHER. I am confident, upon the surest Grounds, this limiting Clause is not to be taken literally, in the Strictness of the Expression, as if the Clergy meant to oblige themselves to the sole Use of that individual Form in the Prayer-Book, exclusive of all other Forms in every Case. For this Construction is utterly forbidden by these two Considerations. (1.) It is contrary to the common Practice of the Clergy, who in their Prayer before Sermon pay no Regard to the Form in that Case prescribed in the Canon; as I shall have Occasion more particularly to remark hereafter.—And then (2.) It is contrary to the known Custom of the Bishops, in composing new Offices and Forms of Devotion, on some special Occasions. It has been a Thing frequent, on Occasion of a special Thanksgiving or Fast, to have special Forms or Offices printed beforehand and distributed to every Parish, for public Use in the Church on such Days. I well remember, particularly in the late Queen ANNE' s Reign, as by Means of the then-War there were frequent Occasions of this Nature, I had the Sight of some of the Forms of Prayer specially provided in that Case. And in them, I must observe by the Way, there were usually one or two Collects for the Reformed Churches abroad: —which you will please to bear in Mind for a future Occasion, in the Sequel of this Dispute.—Now these Reflections make it evident, to a Demonstration, that when the Clergy of the Church subscribe to use the Common-Prayer-Form, AND NONE OTHER, this is not to be taken in the rigid Sense, as our Author understands it, absolutely excluding all other Forms on every Occasion whatsoever. No, but the Sense must be tempered some how, to reconcile it to the Customs in the Church, as abovemention'd. I can readily think of but two Constructions, to put upon the Words, that are consistent. Ex. gr. Must the Words, NONE OTHER, intend—none other statedly? This Construction reconciles the Sense to the Use of other occasional Forms, enjoined by lawful Authority, such as the new Composures made by the Bishops, as above. But then I must observe, this Construction does not so well suit with the Practice of the Clergy in statedly praying before Sermon without using the Form prescribed for the Pulpit-Prayer.—Shall we then say, the Words, NONE OTHER, must intend NONE DIVERS in kind, None else essentially varying from it. The Word, Other, is used either to denote a numerical Difference, or a specifical Difference. But if we construe it here in the former Sense (i. e. None other so much as numerically distinguished from the Common-Prayer ) we must suppose the Clergy chained down by their Subscription to the Use of the Form in the Book, invariably, only, and exclusively of every Form not actually there written: which is a Sense evidently confuted by the aforesaid Customs in the Church, of Occasionally using 〈◊◊〉 , and of statedly praying before Sermon differently from the Form enjoined by Canon. I see no consistent Sense then to put on the Clause, AND •• NE OTHER, if we donit construe it, NONE OTHER in point of specifical Difference. —NONE OTHER but such in Kind, NONE OTHER but of the same Reformed 〈◊〉 . To this indeed I may apply the Character of Alter idem, or another, which is not another. —And very probably, Sir, the Clause [AND NONE OTHER] might be inserted in the Clergy's Declaration, originally, with a particular View to the debarring Priests too Popis • lie inclined, from intermingling any of their Papal Superstitions with the Reform'd Devotions, particularly in the Administration of the holy Sacraments. But I shall leave you now to judge for yourself, which of these Constructions of the Clause [AND NONE OTHER] is most • ational and consistent. Choose but a consistent Sens •• and I doubt not you will justify Mr. W — d' s occasionally using other Prayers than those in the Book.

But further, let me observe to you, Sir, if we should go into a critical Consideration of what must be understood, by fair Construction, as included in the Idea of PUBLICK PRAYER, according to the Idiom of Episcopal Language, it would perhaps be no impossible Attempt, to reconcile Mr. W — d' s Conduct abroad with his subscription and Declaration at home. Its well known, the PUBLICK MINISTERS (so; called) in England are Ministers Episcopally ordered, in Conformity to the Book of Ordination: Such only are held Ministers in the Church of England. —So, the PUBLICK CHURCHES there, are the Cathedral and other Collegiate Churches, the Parish-Churches, and Chapels, consecrated to perform Divine Service in according to the Orders of the Church established by Law.—And thus, in the Sense of the Subscription before us, PUBLICK PRAYER is "common and open Prayer" in the public Churches, the Houses dedicated to the Use of "ministering in the Congregation, by the prescript Form of Divine Service in the Church of England. " At least this is the Canonical Sense of the Expression. For the Constitutions and Canons of the Church of England know no such Think as PUBLICK Prayer done in "private Conventicles"; or in "PRETENDED CHURCHES, which is the Canonical Denomination for all " Meetings Assemblies, or Congregations (of the king's born Subjects) within this Realm, " OTHER than the Episcopal Congregations or Assemblies, By Law established.—Nor in Truth are any deemed PUBLICK OFFICES in Religion, other than those performed in these true and lawful Assemblies, the only PUBLICK ASSEMBLIES in the Sense of the Canons. —Now, according to this View of the Case, though' some (obsolete) Canons of the Church may possibly be alleged against Mr. W — d' s Conduct, in Point of frequenting Conventicles, or pretended Churches, and administering in private Meetings, as if the • were true and lawful Churches; yet with Regard to not using the Church-Liturgy in PUBLICK Prayer, I donit see he was either broken any Canon, or infring'd upon his Subscription. I question indeed whether the Clergy of the Church of England, hold themselves obliged by their Subscription to the like invariable Use of the Common-Prayer-Book in the private Offices of Devotion, as in Public Prayer. And if the Nonconformable Assemblies are reputed but private Meetings, a Church-Clergyman occasionally officiating in such Meetings may esteem himself at Liberty to suspend the Use of the Forms prescribed for Public Prayer.

But, Sir, if you judge this Argument turns upon too critical Distinctions, and are disposed to allow, that the religious Assemblies in New-England are properly, what our Author callsthem, Public Assemblies, not what the Church-Canons censure by the Name of pretended Churches, or private Conventicles, and that therefore Prayer performed in such Assemblies is in just Construction Public Prayer, —I need not stand to debate this Point with you at present.

Other Reasons I have still, Sir, why I can by no Means concur with our Author, in thinking that Mr. W—d' s Subscription to the special Article, referred to, obliges him so indispensably to use the Common-Prayer-Forms, but that he may occasionally omit using them, where he judges Free-praying most expedient and eligible (all Circumstances considered) as here in the New-England Congregations. For undoubtedly this particular Subscription to that special Article about the Use of the Common-Prayer, is not justly to be supposed of more extensive Obligation in Point of Place, than his general Subscription to the 39 Articles of Religion. And if we consult the Ratification at the End of the Book of Articles, this expressly tells us how f • r they extend by Force of the Subscription, being only " approved and allowed to be holden and executed WITHIN THE REALM" of England; and here it stops, without the Addition of "other Dominions," as elsewhere sometimes. Now this Ratification is one Thing expressly included within the three particular Articles, our Author refers to, as what the Church esteems of great Importance; and I think, Mr. W—d has subscrib'd to the Ratification in the 3d Article, as well as to the Use of the common Prayer in the second. By a fair Consequence then, laying these Things together, and interpreting the 2d Article by the 3d, his Subscription to the Use of the Form in the Common-Prayer-Book prescribed, AND NONE OTHER, must in Reason be construed, at the most; but only an Engagement to use that WITHIN THE REALM, where it is by public Authority established; and not be supposed to extend its Obligation indifferently all over the World, or even so far as New England, which though' belonging to the King's Dominions, yet is not WITHIN HIS REALM, but is included under the Name of FOREIGN PARTS, constantly so applied even by the incorporated Society at home for propagating the Gospel.

And that the above Remark is not without very just Foundation, it may further help to convince you, if you will inspect the Canon next to that our Author has alleged on this Occasion. The 37th Canon requiring the very same Subscription, in Case of a licensed Minister's coming to RESIDE IN ANY DIOCESS, says, He shall not be permitted, THERE to preach,— unless he first consent and subscribe to the three Articles before mentioned, in the Presence of the BISHOP of the DIOCESS wherein he is to preach —Now from the Tenor of this Canon it's evident, that the Article engaging a Clergyman to use in public Worship the Church of England Form, and none other (whatever Sense you put upon the Words) is only then obligatory to him, by Virtue of his Subscription, while he is RESIDING in some DIOCESS, and offering himself THERE to preach. —Consequently the Subscriber, though' here in New-England (or other foreign Parts) he intermits the Use of the Forms of Prayer, and Orders and Ceremonies prescribed in the Communion Book, or the Book of Common-Prayer, yet he is not liable for this to the Penalties of the following (38th) Canon, under this Title,— Re • olters after Subscription, censured. Nor yet of the 54th Canon, doom in such as refuse Conformity, to have their Licence taken from them. —For if New-England be no DIOCESS, nor Part of a DIOCESS; if New-England have no Prelate appointed over it by public Authority, and residing in it, nor belongs to any Prelate' s Jurisdiction, to whom it is by Law subject and accountable; I pray, Sir, who is there in this Case to call Mr. W—d to a Reckoning, and execute the Censure upon him as a Revolter after Subscription, or a Refuser of Conformity, because of his omitting here in foreign Parts to use the Church of England Forms and Orders! If he is obnoxious to Censure, he is according to the Run of the Canons only punishable by the Bishop of the Diocese, or Ordinary of the Place having Episcopal Jurisdiction. But if here be no Diocese, if here be no Bishop. or Ordinary of the Place having Episcopal Jurisdiction, if here be no Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical under any Bishop or Arch-bishop, to which Mr. W—d is by Law subjected; the Consequence is clear to me, that in vain do any pretend his omitting the Church-Forms, in his Ministrations here in our public Assemblies, to be a punishable Breach of the Orders and Constitutions of the Church of England, or an Infringement upon his own Subscription.

You are sensible, Sir, it's of the very Nature of Laws and Canons, that they refer to Place, and be circumscrib'd within Boundaries fixed and certain.—The Orders of the Church of England being limited to be held and executed WITHIN THE REALM, the Clergy's Subscription to them must of Consequence have but a local and limited Obligation upon them to Conformity; reaching at furthest only to an equal Extent with the Authority and binding Force of the said Orders themselves.—Our Author then can never expect to carry his Argument against Mr. W—d, unless he is able to prove, That no possible Change of Situation, no possible Alteration of Place in point of Residence, will infer any the least Variation as to the obliging Nature and Force of his Subscription; but that the Case is the same, wherever he is, and the Reason of the Thing the same, under all possible Variety of Circumstances. Let him prove this, and he shall be mihi magnus Apollo.

But our Author might be asked if he thinks Mr. W—d is justly chargeable with violating his Subscription, by ministering in SCOTLAND in like Manner as he has done in these Parts, without using the Episcopal Form of Religion?—For if Mr. W—d as thus managing there, is thought justly to be acquitted, I should think by Parity of Reason, his Conduct here ought not to be condemned in this Point; Because the two Cases, as they appear in my View of Things, are at least very nigh parallel: and if here (Sir) you differ from me in Opinion, I pray the Grounds or your Judgment.—But if our Author, to be consistent with himself, should accuse and censure his Conduct in SCOTLAND, as well as here, I think it's worthy of Consideration, how egregiously he will thereby redect upon the Church of England as defective in her Charity, and violating the Communion of Saints. For Mr. W—d's s Conduct there cannot be condemned on the Foot of his Subscription, without supposing that the Church of England intended, by imposing upon her Clergy the Subscription aforesaid, to tie them up from occasional Acts of Ministerial Communion with all other National Churches; not excepting even her Sister-Church of SCOTLAND, bordering so near upon her, and whose Prosperity stands so closely connected with her own. It must certainly be a scandalous Imputation on the Church of England, to suppose her so unconscionably bigotted to her own established Form of Religion as to forbid her Clergy all occasional Conformity to the different Mode of Worship in a Sister-Church, when Providence gives them an Opportunity, and their own Conscience puts no Bar in the Way. That were in Effect to renounce the Communion of Churches; this being very much supported and carried on by Clerical Communion, or the Interchange of mutual Offices of Love and Assistance between their respective Ministers.

If you will be pleased, Sir, to consult the Articles, Canons, and Orders of the Church of England, and the Writings of her ancient Divines, you will see no Colour of Reason, for so dishonorable a Thought of the English Reformers, as if they were for laying an absolute Prohibition upon the Clergy of the Church of England, in Regard of Occasional Communion with foreign Churches, in the Administration of any Branch of their ministerial Office. I am persuaded, those pious Reformers never meant to exclude the Protestant Churches abroad from their Charity, though' differently constituted in Point of Ecclesiastical Government and external Modalities in Religion. They never meant to set up the Church of England for the Head & Centre of Christian Unity, expecting all other Churches to reduce themselves to her Standard, upon Pain of being shut out from her Charity and Fellowship in the Gospel.—No; so far from this, that whoever converses with their Remains in Print, or with the Histories of those Times, will see abundant Evidence, that the Church of England, in that Day professed a Catholic Communion with the Reformed Churches, and were firmly united with them all in Charity and Affection, as Members of one Body with herself. Nor can it reasonably be supposed, they condemned the Ministry of all other Protestant Churches, while they did not renounce the Communion of the Churches themselves. And I believe, none but such as have their Brain heated with the strange Fire of Bigotry to the English Episcopacy and Liturgy, and have got little narrow Party-Notions, the very Reverse to those of the first Reformers, can ever have it enter into their Head to imagine, that the Church of England has sat up herself for the only true Church upon Earth.

Her 19th Article expresses no such Schismatic Spirit; but frames the Definition of a Church lawfully constituted, in such large and general Terms, as to comprehend all the Foreign Protestant Churches, as well as herself. Thus says the Article,—"A visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful Men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Christ's Ordinance, in all those Things that of Necessity are requisite to the same." Bp. BURNET has this Remark upon it among others—

—Surely then the Church of England could not intend to confine her Clergy to her own Communion alone: and the Article leaves everyone to the Exercise of his own private Judgment. The Bishop' s Exposition of this Article might be confirmed, I doubt not, from the Homilies and Prayers of the Church of England, and from the Writings of the English Bishops and Divines in the beginning of the Reformation, which are the best Commentaries on the Articles. Remarkable is that Passage of the famous HOOKER, in his Ecclesiastical Polity (Lib. 3. Sec. 11.)— —After this, Sir, I presume, none can reasonably imagine, the great HOOKER condemned and disclaimed the Ministry of the SCOTTISH, or other Presbyterian Churches abroad. And he doubtless spake what was the general Sense of the Church of England in his Day.—But further, • is worthy of Remark, that sometimes Ministers having only Presbyterian Orders have been admitted (without Re-ordination) to officiate in the Church of England. For Instance, as Mr. Strype, in his Life of GRINDAL A. Bp. of Canterbury, informs us, the said Arch bishop licensed Mr. John Morrison, a Scotch Divine, to preach and administer the Sacraments anywhere within his Province, by Virtue of his Presbyterian Ordination. In his Licence 'tis expressly noticed of him, —Again, 'tis observable, the Church of England has not scrupled to do public Honor to the Church of SCOTLAND, even at a Time when the said Scottish Church was presbyterian in her Constitution. For so it was, when the Canons were compiled: and yet in the 55th, which is the Canon prescribing the Preacher's Form of Prayer before Sermon, it is there enjoined on the Clergy to pray for the Church of SCOTLAND by Name.—I hope, this has not been any Occasion of the modern Clergy's customary Omission of the Canonical Form. —However, I shall rest it with your Judgment, whether it be likely, that the Church of England, which by a solemn Canon and Constitution appoints the Church of SCOTLAND to be expressly prayed for by all the Clergy, should ever design to brand the Ministry of that Church as false or invalid, by Precluding her Sons from all occasional Commerce therewith in sacred Administrations: which must be the Effect, if she has set such Limits to them in Relation to the Use of the Common-Prayer, as that without this, they must on no Occasion presume publicly to officiate in the Church of SCOTLAND.—Again, Sir, it must needs be granted, the Church of SCOTLAND stands at least on equal Terms with the English Church, as the Church of GENEVA. And yet, if you have seen a certain Letter from the University of OXFORD (dated Feb. 5. 1706. • ) and approved by her Masters and Doctors in a general Convocation, which they sent to the Genevan Ministers, you may observe, 'tis directed To the Rev. Pastors of the Church of GENEVA: and in the Body of the Epistle you find their Testimony in these Words, —Now it's well known, the Church of GENEVA is Calvinian and Presbyterian; and yet by the solemn Act of this famous English University, 'tis expressly owned to have LAWFUL PASTORS and RIGHT Administration of Sacraments. In this, we may rationally conceive, they speak but the real Sense of the Church of England. And after this, can it with any Shadow of Reason be surmis'd, that this University, or this Church, would refuse Communion with the Church of GENEVA, by prohibiting her SONS occasional Conformity there, or Communion with her lawful Pasters, by assisting them in the Word or Sacraments rightly administered! Why then should we imagine Mr. Whitefield, one of the Sons of Oxford, restrained by his Subscription from communicating with the Church of SCOTLAND, as laudable a reformed Church as that of Geneva? It were a Reproach upon the Church of England, to suppose she meant this.

I am sure, there's no Colour of Reason for this dishonorable Thoit, from the Church-Article (23 • ) Of ministering in the Congregation: where we have a Definition of those that are lawfully ca •• ed and sent to dispense the Things of God. Look into it, and tr • • ir • 〈◊〉 you can reconcile what is said there, to a Supposition of the Church of England' s denying her Clergy all Ministerial Communion (in public Act • of Office) with the foreign Churches. It is there expressly said, "Th • se we ought • o judge lawfully called and sent [i. e. to execute the Office of public Preac • ing and administering the Sacraments in the Congregation] which 〈◊〉 chosen and called to this Work by Men, who have public Authority given unto them, in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's Fineyard." —Says Bishop BURNET upon it,

&c.—The Bishop afterwards observes, —He closes his Exposition with this Observation,—

Now the Article (viewed in this Light the Bp • sets it in) Mr. W—d has subscrib'd to, and that willingly and ex • animo, believing it agreeable to the Word of God: And finding the other Churches abroad, though' reformed differently from the Church of England, yet by the Articles were not denied, but implicitly owned to be true Churches, and that "neither our Reformers, nor their Successors for near 80 Years after the Articles were published, did ever question the Constitution of such Churches;" and finding himself,

to which he was disposed, but rather bound to them, by subscribing to the Articles of the Church; he did therefore justly conclude himself but in the Exercise of his lawful Liberty, if not Duty, while practicing Occasional Conformity in the Church of Scotland, and holding Communion with the Clergy there, whom, according to the Article, he ought to judge lawfully called and sent into the Lord's Fineyard, and so to judge himself by his Subscription obliged to receive and own as his Brethren in the Fellowship of the Gospel.

I may further observe, that since the Union of the two Kingdoms, when the Church of Scotland (though' differently reformed) was put on the same Foot with the Church of England, in Point of Legal Establishment, it cannot (I think) be reasonably called in Question, whether the two National Churches, are not to be reputed in full Charity with one another, as Sister-Churches, notwithstanding their varying Constitutions, and Orders, Rites and Customs, in Point of Worthy and Discipline.—And in this State of the Case surely occasional Communion of these two established Churches with one another, particularly by their Clergy in public Acts of mutual Assistance and Pulpit-Help in special, as they have • air Opportunity, and so far as may well consist with the Conservation of their respective • orms, Orders and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, appears one very significant Expression of their mutual Charity and christ ••• Union. —Where there's a Concord between two Churches in the Essentials of Christianity, a known Unity of Faith, in Things necessary and fundamental, and besides this an Unity of Worship, by an Agreement in all 〈◊〉 general Things necessary and essential to Christian Worship, here's (as i • should seem) a loud Call to mu • ual Forbearance, and Compliance in the les ••• Modalities of Religion as far as will stand with an upright Conscience: and methinks, if it looks like a criminal Frowardness and schismatical Humour in one of these Churches to obtrude her peculiar Opinion and Practice upon the other in those extra-essential Points, wherein they differ, as indispensable Terms of Communion of Members, it is certainly worse still in that Church to interdict her Clergy from all occasional Communion with the other, where they see Light for a Compliance. To suppose the Church of England hath done this, is to cast a black Reproach upon her, as a Separatist from the whole Christian World: Nor indeed can I discover any just Foundation for so unworthy a Thoit of her. At least I can see nothing at all in her Book of Articles, which the Clergy subscribe to, that carries the Face of this: Nor am I appris'd of any authentic or valuable Exposition, that carries the Sense of them this Way. Forward Imposers of Episcopal Forms and Orders may perhaps interpret the Articles into this Sense▪ But I know of no Authority they have to interpret them for others. The Clergy, le • t to the free Exercise of their private Judgment, will doubtless interpret differently the common Rules, they have subscrib'd to: and as everyone has a Right to enjoy his own private Thoughts in disputable Matters, so likewise has he a Right to act upon 'em, where he does not see such Exercise of his Liberty will interfere with the public Good, the avowed Design of all Law and Rule.

Accordingly Mr. Whitefield esteeming himself at Liberty to conduct in the Case of occasional Communion as should (all Circumstances weighed) appear best and most eligible in his own private Judgment, has been pleased to use his lawful Liberty when in SCOTLAND, by practicing occasional Fellowship with that allowedly true and reformed Church, and equally established by Law as the Church of England, which he belonged to. Nor, after this View of the Case, can I imagine ever a Bishop in England would presume to call Mr. W—d to an Account, and censure him for his Occasional Conformity and Communion with the Church of SCOTLAND. I think, this would be a flying in the Face of their own Articles and Canons▪ as well as of Scripture and Reason. As for the Word of God, the great Charter of our holy Religion, this not only teaches us, that there is one Lord, and one Body, but requires Christians to keep the Unity of the Spirit; and therefore, when Providence gives an Opportunity, forbids them to refuse Communion with a true Church, holding the Head, and in point of religious Rituals (as well as Opinions) imposing nothing repugnant to Scripture-Rule.—As for the Voice of Reason, this confirms the Dictates of Revelation in the Case. Everyone's own Reason must inform him, that Duty admits of Alteration according to the Variety of Times and Situations a Man may be in: so that what may be of Obligation in one Season, or Circumstance, is not so in another. For Instance, the Interposition of public Authority may, in Things indifferent, very much alter a Case, and make that a Duty, or expedient, which otherwise we might think to be not so. At least this is the Doctrine of the Church of England in her 30th Canon, which says,

—I may justly add upon it, That where they are neither commanded nor prohibited by Law, and so are left in their native State of Indifference, here certainly it is at every Man's Pleasure, either to use or to omit them, as he judges (upon Consideration of all Circumstances) wisest and most expedient, both in Regard to his own private Benefit and the public Good.—The Alteration of Place, in point of settled Abode, or occasional Residence, very often produces an Alteration in point of Duty. It's a Maxim founded in Reason, that where the Grounds of any Duty no longer subsist, there the Obligation is discontinu'd. Thus the special Oath of a Justice obliges him while in his own proper County or Circuit: but ceases to bind him, in point of Action, when out of his Civil Boundaries▪ And, to reduce this to the Case before us, why should it be thought, the special Promise and Subscription of a Clergyman of the Church of England, in Relation to the Use of her Forms and Orders, is anymore binding to him when not personally within the Church or Realm? The main End of the said Subscription is doubtless to keep up Uniformity of public Worship WITHIN THE CHURCH, and maintain the common Order of the Church within his Majesty's Realm of ENGLAND. And how that is infring'd by Mr. W—d' s occasional Con • ormity, which he practices when abroad, out of the Bounds of the Church and Realm, is a Difficulty, that I want to have solv'd.

Mr. W—d, I conclude, is of Opinion with the Church of England in her 34th Article, which he has subscrib'd with the rest, and where we read,

—Well, pursuant to his Subscription to this Article, and in full Accord with the Principles there advanced, was Mr. W—d' s Practice when in SCOTLAND; where he might justly hold himself, by this Article, at least permitted and authorized occasionally to conform to the Mode of Worship in that Country, as not apprehending the • ame repugnant to the Word of God; and in Consequence of this his Apprehension, might reasonably look upon himself, by his Subscription, obliged no • to offend against the common Order of the Church by Law established THERE, as well as not to offend, when in ENGLAND, against the common Order of the Church there established by Law.

Now the Ca • e, in Mr. W—d' s View of it, as well as in mine, is much the same here in New England; which is a Country of Nonconformists, a People though subject to the KING of Great-Britain, yet not included within his Realm of ENGLAND, anymore than his Majesty's Subjects in Scotland; and who not only enjoy full Liberty of Conscience by Royal Charter, but have our Ecclesiastical Immunities, Privileges and Usages in Religion, rati • y'd and confirmed, and fully secured to us by express Law, under the ROYAL Sanction; as good a Tenure, for ought I know, if not as that by which the Church of England herself holds the Rights of her National Hierarchy in general, yet at least as that by which the Bishops hold their Right to govern by her Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical. If therefore Mr. W—d, though' by Profession and Character an Episcopal Clergyman, finds a Freedom in his Conscience to associate himself to the Communion of our Congregational Churches, and to minister in our Pulpits, he may justly repute himself virtually licensed by the 34th Article of his own Church to do it, and by his very Subscription inhibited and restrained from offending against the common Order of the Worship of God in this Land. So far is Mr. W—d, as a Minister of the Church of England from being legally forbidden, that he is rather legally required, and by Virtue of his own Subscription solemnly engaged and bound to practice Occasional Conformity to the received Customs and Usages of the Country, in Religious Worship, though' varying from the Episcopal Rites and Modes; while he sees no Repugnancy in them to the Word of God, nor indeed (in Strictness of Speech) any Repugnancy to the Requirements of his own Church. For you are sensible, Sir, that then is one Law properly said to be repugnant to another, when these Laws are not only of a contrary Tenor, but made by lawful Authority obliging to People of the same Place. This is plain, I think, in the Ca • e of Acts of Parliament touching Civil Matters: which, unless they expressly name the Plantations, or his Majesty's Dominions in America, or the like, these are taken to be not included within the said National Laws; or at least the Charter-Governments here are not understood to be precluded from their Privilege of making Acts and Laws touching the same Matters, of a contrary or different Tenor, which, nevertheless, are not deemed repugnant to the Laws of the Nation.—Now, Sir, I believe, you are also sensible, that the Canons & Constitutions Ecclesiastical, in whatever Force at Home, donit at all affect us in foreign Parts, by dint of their own Authority, but only in the Case of voluntary Submission: Nor can these Church-Canons be supposed to affect us, in the present State of our Civil Policy, unless by some Law of our own they were adopted and enforced, or else by some Act of Parliament they had their Authority and binding Force extended to the King's foreign Colonies, Provinces and Plantations in America. You may observe, Sir, that even King JAMES, in his Letters Patent ratifying and establishing the said Constitutions and Canons, does not carry his Injunction of observing and executing the same beyond the Limits of "the Province of Canterbury and York ", in his Kingdom of England. Neither indeed does the Act of Uniformity itself touch the Plantations, but is confined expressly to the Bounds of ENGLAND and WALES, and the Town of Berwick. —It is impossible therefore, I think, for Mr. W—d, in the present Case, to be Convinced of the Law as a Transgressor: for, as • aith the Scripture, Where no Law is, there is no Transgression. For Sin is the Transgression of the Law. Therefore, Sin is not imputed, when there is no Law. —And in Truth, as for such in foreign Parts that have gone over to the Church of England, and voluntarily obliged themselves by the Clergy-Subscription, and Oath of Canonical Obedience, I am at a Loss, among those that exercise any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the Realm, WHO it is that is their proper Bishop, or Ordinary, to whom they are duly subjected, either by Royal Order, or by Parliamentary Decision; one or other of which, for ought I can see, in the present State of Things, is the only Foot, on which any Prelate of England can pretend a lawful Right and Authority to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in these his Majesty's remote Dominions, or have Power to enjoin the Church-Canons, Constitutions and Orders upon the Episcopal Clergy here, and in Consequence thereof to punish Delinquents. And in my humble Opinion, if any Bishop of the Church of England takes upon him to exercise such Jurisdiction here without lawful Right, he makes an unjustifiable Excursion beyond his proper Line; and his extra-diocesan Censures in the Case of any Clergy-Man's being tax'd with Misconduct in New-England, might be easily warded off by a foreign Plea produced in Court against him, or an Appeal à Judice non compe •••• e.

Now, though' Mr. W—d did in England submit to the usual Subscription and Oath, yet the Obligation upon him to Canonical Obedience cannot, in any just Construction, be judged more than co-extensive with the binding Force of the Canons & Constitutions themselves, or more than commensurate with the lawful Authority and Power of his Ordinary and other chief Ministers of the Church, unto whom has been committed the Charge and Government over him. —It is worthy of Notice, Sir, that when the Governors of the Church do not enforce any particular Canon by their express Injunction thereof, and Demand of Conformity to it in their proper Ecclesiastical Districts, then the Clergy (as some of their most judicious Writers inform us, is their common Sense upon the Case) do not hold themselves bound by their Oath, to conform and obey in such Instance: Nor indeed, if an actual Demand be made, do they look upon themselves obliged to absolute Obedience to the Canon, exclusive of their own Right of private Judgment, which (as 〈◊〉 • ame Writers observe) is always supposed reserved to them inviolate. And surely then, Where the Governors of the Church of England have no Power to execute the Canons, no lawful Authority to enjoin them, so consequently no Right to demand Obedience, it's self-evident, that There the Clergy's Oath of Canonical Obedience is of no Force to bind their Conscience.—This Argument I think a full Vindication of Mr. W—d' s Conduct (equally in New-England, as in Scotland ) with Regard to his disusing the Church-Form in public Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, notwithstanding what our Author has pleaded against him from the Articles and Cano • s. —And I must profess, upon the whole, I can see no Obligation on him, nor just Reason as yet for him, either to "renounce his Subscription, or to alter his Conduct ". He's reduced to no such Dilemma at present: but without gratifying our Author in either Part of his Admonition, may still "approve himself a Consistent upright Man. "

But so much for this Time. You'll excuse the delaying my further Remarks, for the Contents of my next. In the mean Time, let us pray for Light, and Grace, and Peace, thro' our Lord Jesus Christ, to be multiplied to us, and to all his Ministers and People.

The Third LETTER.

I'M now a little at Leasure to attend the LETTER in its next Paragraph, where our Author essays to obviate an excusatory Plea, that he thought probably Mr. W—d might allege in Favor of his Conduct, from the Example of " other the Church-Clergy, who may act as little consistently, in other Respect But this, says he, is nothing to the Point in hand. "—However, I think it not so generous a part in him, to refuse Mr. W—d the Advantage of a Plea in Apology for himself, which if his Conduct be really culpable, be • ure will not justify, yet may extenuate it.—And if it be Fact, that Mr. W—d does herein • ct as consistently as others of the Church-Clergy do in other respects, I cannot • think with our Author, that his pleading this would be nothing to the Point in hand. For there may be Cases, wherein approved general Example, or allowed prevalent Custom, which very much gives the public or common Sense of a received Rule, is justly im • rovable by a particular Person in Vindication of his Conduct, either directly with relation to that, or with relation to any other like Rule, by proportion, and parity of Reason. Thus, in the present Case of Subscription to the stated Use of the Form of Prayer in the Common prayer-book prescribed, in public Prayer, and none other, —if the Meaning be screw'd up to the Height, if the Expression be understood in its Rigour, and taken absolutely, without any Reserve, without Exception of any possible Case, or any the least Abatement of the Sense, I say, then the whole Body of the Episcopal Clergy thro' the Nation, at home and abroad, are liable to fall into the • ame Condemnation with Mr. W—d, as Violators of their Subscription. For (as already observed) it's their common Practice, in their Pulpit▪Prayer (or Prayer before Sermon ) to vary from the prescript Form; either instead thereof using some Collect in the Book, not appointed specially for that Occasion, or using a Form of their own composing, or else praying in the extempore-way, just as their several Inclinations lead them. The universal Example of the Clergy of the Church, in thus taking Liberty to order their Pulpit-Prayer, every Man as he pleaseth, notwithstanding they have subscrib'd to use the appointed Form, AND NONE OTHER, manifests it to be the common Sense of the whole Body of the Clergy, that they are not under an absolute total Restraint from free-praying, in the public Assembly, as our Author seems to represent their Case; and therefore that their Subscription is not to be understood in the Strictness of the Letter, but admits of a qualified Sense.—And it is a Consideration, which serves to strengthen my Argument, that notwithstanding the Dissenters have often alleged this in Controversy, as a Vindication of their Manner of praying, against the Reproaches cast upon it by certain Bigots to the Liturgy, yet it has occasioned no Alteration of the Clergy' s Practice: And though' some over-heated Zealots among the Church▪Clergy have often complained of this free-praying before Sermon, as an unwarrantable Innovation and Irregularity, which Dissenters make an ill Handle of, to serve their Cause, yet it has never produced any public Censure on the Practice. Nay, I presume, even the Bishops conform to the prevailing Usage, and do themselves neglect the established Rule in this Instance, nor make any Scruple of using OTHER Form or Manner of praying before Sermon, than is by public Authority prescribed in that Case.—It's well known, the Bidding Form (so called) is long since antiquated, and grown out of Date; no longer used I suppose, by a single Man of the Clergy. —There is such a Th ••• in F • ct, as Laws and Canons being antiquated, or generally and practically dispensed with, though' never formally and authoritatively repealed. And in such Case the Government does not interpose, to exact the Observance of those obsolete Rules, or punish the Violation of them.—Therefore, Sir, You must not strain the Point of Subscription, as our Author has done in Mr. W—d' s Ca • e, le • t you should condemn the Body of the Clergy of this Generation, yea, and of past Generations too, as "acting a wicked insincere Part," while varying from the Common Order of the Church, in the Instance above-mentioned. Surely we should make all possible Allowances, to avoid breaking Charity: and the Case now before us has an equal Claim to our Candour, I think, as the other.

Do (Sir) but consider Mr. W—d as standing in an EPISCOPAL Pulpit, in any one such thro' all England, Ireland, or America, and you will find he is allowed by Custom, which they say is Common Law, to depart from the prescribed Form, and to practice praying freely, just in the Manner he does at this Time in New England; —the same which, I suppose, he was wont to do in England, while he had the Use of the Public Churches, —NO MAN FORBIDDING HIM. The only Difference is, that in that Case, besides the Pulpit-free-prayer, there must be the proper Forms for the Reading-Desk previously used, by himself or another.—While then you suspect him of violating his Subscription, you will do well (Sir) to take Care that you be not Partial in the Law.

Please, Sir, to consider, as Mr. W—d is Providentially here in these Parts, and disposed (so he solemnly professes) upon the Principles of Brotherly Kindness and Charity, and the Communion of Saints, to cultivate a Correspondence with the Churches and Ministers of New England, hoping to subserve the best Interest of this People, and willing for that Purpose to minister in the Congregations here, who are also willing (many of them at least) to attend his Ministrations, but still perhaps generally scrupulous of joining with him in the Use of the Liturgy; is there not a visible Necessity, in the Case, if he officiates in Preaching, that upon the Gospel-Rule of pleasing others for their Good to Edification, and giving none Offence, he omit the Use of the Prayer▪Book on such Occasions, and pray memoriter, or pray extempore, or else not pray at all!—And if in such Case he chooses the unstinted Way, Can any Man forbid the Use of a natural Right and a spiritual Gift, that he should not pray in this free Manner, as well as we? —Nor indeed, Sir, is Mr. W—d the only Example in this kind, that has been known in New-England. An Instance, within my own Memory, I think it not amiss to mention. A Clergyman of the Church, whom I was well acquainted with, and a Gentleman of stanch Conformist-Principles, both as to Episcopacy and Liturgy, as well as of a good Behaviour, I mean the late Rev. Mr. Christopher Bridge, formerly QUEEN's Chaplain at the Chapel in Boston, but afterwards of Rye, happning (I think it was the Case more than once) occasionally in his Travels thro' Connecticut to be on the Lord's-day at Stonington (as I remember) where the aged and venerable Mr. Noyes was then Minister, and being kindly invited by him into his Pulpit, he readily comply'd to give him his Help, and in his Prayers before and after Sermon, conformed • like Mr. W—d ▪ to the Custom of the Place, making no Use of his Book; nor indeed making any Use of Notes in his Preaching.—I had the Account from his own Mouth.—And though' the Bond of Subscription was the same in his Case, as in Mr. W—d' s, yet I could never perceive that he himself in the least suspected his having violated it in that Article of his Conduct, but used to speak of it as an Example of Candour on both Sides: nor can I learn that the Reproach was ever cast upon him from any Quarter, of acting a wicked insincere Part, in what he did on that Occasion. I think, this is to the Point in Hand; nor can our Author turn it off with saying, it was an acting inconsistently "in other Respects▪" for Mr. Bridge and Mr. Whitefield appear to be in the same Predicament.

But to go on with our Author —

He next mentions a PROMISE the Clergy of the Church make at their entering into Orders, in Answer to a Question put to them by the Bishop; and which Mr. W—d "hath solemnly and repeatedly sealed his Approbation of at the blessed Sacrament: " importing, that he resolved " by the Help of the Lord, to give his faithful Diligence ALWAYS to minister the Doctrine, and SACRAMENTS, and Discipline of CHRIST, as the LORD hath commanded, and AS THIS CHURCH AND REALM HATH RECEIVED THE SAME ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, so that he may teach the People committed to his Care and Charge with all Diligence to keep and observe the same. " Now our Author suspects Mr. W—d' s Practice in New-England by conforming to the Manner of these Churches, and not keeping to the Rules and Forms of his own Communion-Book, in ministering the Sacrament among us▪ is an "open Violation of his Promise " aforesaid; and seems to think him justly accusable of " aggravated Prevarication, to say nothing worse."

But I think, Sir, the Difficulty here (take it at the worst) is not indissoluble: but admits of much the same easy Solution, as that before on the head of Subscription. This Declaration or Promise at entering into holy Orders • I mean so far as it relates to the PARTICULAR MODE of Ministration used in the Church of England, carries with it, not an absolute and unbounded, b •• only a local and limited Obligation.—Its binding Force upon the Pr • m ••• r, even at the very largest Extent in Reason supposable, is only while he is personally residing WITHIN THE CHURCH AND REALM, where the Episcopal Ordinances, Canons and Constitutions are received and held in Force.—Nor does the Particle (ALWAYS) which our Author puts an Emphasis upon, alter the Case, or stretch the Sense beyond the Bounds mentioned. You cannot be insensible, Sir, that such Terms of Universality, though' delivered absolutely, are often to be constru'd in a more lax and qualified Sense: in many Cases, the very Nature and Reason of Things obliges us to not take them in the most extensive Sense, but to put some Restriction upon their Meaning. Nor is it acting an ingenuous Part, to urge so mighty a Consequence, as is depending in the present Case, upon the mere Force of a Word, taken by our Author in an unrestrain'd, when it fairly admits of a limited Signification. And as it is here applied, it must be understood with some Abatements from the strong universal Sense. For Instance, understanding the Promise here of a direct Promise ALWAYS to minister, &c. may it not admit of such limited Constructions as the following? ALWAYS so long as I am where I MAY minister in this Form and Manner.—(For what a learned Defender of the Church of England has said about the Burial-Office in particular, I think is applicable as to all the Offices and Forms in general, " We [the Clergy] give our Assent to the Use of it, where it may be used, and that is all. ") Or, ALWAYS, so long as I am residing in any Diocese: —Or, ALWAYS, so long as I am within the Church and Realm of England, where this Form of Ministration is received as according to the Commandments of God. —And it's observable, the Manner of Expression in the Promise itself [ as this CHURCH and REALM hath received the same ] points us very plainly to the last Restriction. And I conclude, Mr. W—d, when ministering in the public Churches, has never been wanting to his Promise, but ALWAYS careful to practice full Conformity to the Church of England, in his Sacramental Ministrations, during his Stay within the Realm.

But still, upon a Review of this Promise, I find by the Tenor of it Room for another Restriction, which reduces the Obligation of it within the narrowest Limits, not exceeding the Bounds of even that single Congregation, where he has Charge. Surely, His Promise in Answer to the Question put to him at Ordination, ought in all Reason to be interpreted as carrying an Analogy or Proportion with the Bishop' s Demand. Now the Words of the Question run in this Connection, " Will you give your faithful Diligence ALWAYS to minister the Doctrine, and Sacraments, and Discipline of CHRIST, [ as the Lord hath commanded, and as THIS CHURCH and REALM hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God ] SO THAT YOU MAY TEACH THE PEOPLE COMMITTED TO YOUR CARE AND CHARGE with all Diligence to keep and observe the same? To which the Answer made, is this, "I will do so by the Help of the Lord." —Interpreting then the Answer by the Question, it must be allowed, the direct View of this Engagement is to a particular Charge; and the End expre • lie aimed at, is, Teaching the People committed to his Care, &c. This last Clause (in my Opinion) governs the Sense of the whole Period: and plainly manifests the just Extent of the Promise here made. Hence then, according to the express Letter of the Question and Answer, if the Promise be understood of ministering by the publicly received Forms, and Rules prescribed in the Prayer-Book, a Clergyman is not bound by his said Promise, to observe the same in a Variety of Cases that may happen; as, if he at present has not a People committed to his Care, or is occasionally ministering out of his particular Charge, &c. —However, certainly it does not oblige him to impose the Episcopal Forms upon another Congregation, scrupling the Use of them, and yet where he may be both invited and inclined to minister. —I shall make no other Apology for this Way of arguing, but that if our Author is for taking the Advantage of a Literal Meaning in the Word—ALWAYS, used in the first Clause of the Passage before us, I think, he cannot consistently refuse me the Liberty of taking an equal Advantage from the Use of the Words—PEOPLE and CHARGE, in the last Clause of the same Passage.

However, Sir, I must confess, I have said all this only by way of Argumentum ad b • min •• , or in Accommodation to the wrong Notion of this Promise, suggested by our Author, I suppose, inadvertently. For if you will please to review the Bishop's Question, 'tis obvious, that Mr. W—d, in his Answer, did not directly promise (whether ALWAYS, or otherwise,) in fact to minister—as this Church and Realm hath received, &c. but only that he would GIVE HIS FAITHFUL DILIGENCE always to minister —as aforesaid.—Neither, did he, in this Place, promise so much as that universally and indefinitely, but with an express Limitation to THE PEOPLE COMMITTED TO HIS CARE AND CHARGE. A Restriction evidently couched in his Promise, by the strongest Implication. So that when in Providence he is excentrical to his stated Charge at any Time, he has a temporary Release from his Promise, so far as relates to his ministering, or even to his giving Diligence to minister, according to the Church Forms. Notwithstanding, for Argument's Sake, I will wave the Advantage of those restraining Words, and grant that by Parity of Reason his Promise may oblige him beyond the Limits of his own particular Charge: Yet it is possible, in some Cases, he may be punctual to his promise aforesaid, though' he actually minister in the Congregation without using the Episcopal Forms. For is it not a possible Case, that he may GIVE HIS FAITHFUL DILIGENCE always to minister, in the Way and Manner of the Church of England, and yet it be out of his Power sometimes to minister thus in Fact? For Instance, when in his occasional Travels he comes into a Place peopled wholly with Dissenters from the Church of England, who being disaffected to Book-praying, would take Offence at his using the Liturgy, but will gladly receive him without it, I donit see that his Promise binds him in this Case, to forbear ministering at all, merely because the People so prejudiced would not suffer him to minister in the Episcopal Way.—Or, again, supposing there be Episcopal (as well as Dissenting) Congregations in the Place, to whom, were Access allowed him, he would freely minister in the Use of the Church Forms, if in this Case he properly applies for the Liberty of Episcopal Churches, and seeks Opportunity to minister there, but meets with Repulse, and Disappointment in his Measures, I think, when he has thus GIVEN HIS FAITHFUL DILIGENCE TO MINISTER,—he has truly answered the Design of his Promise, so far as 'tis rationally supposable it can oblige him in such a Case. Therefore in New-England, where the Episcopal Pulpits have been refu •••• im, if other Pulpits be opened to him, and here (to avoid Offence, 〈◊〉 for other good Reasons) he thinks himself obliged to minister without 〈◊〉 Church-Liturgy, I cannot discern any solid Grounds, upon which the Charge of breaking his Promise can possibly in this Case be brought against him.—But in such Case, he has in Providence a fair and clear DISPENSATION from his Promise (Consider it in what Light you will) so far as it respects Liturgical Ministration; And if he gives his faithful Diligence always to minster —AS THE LORD HATH COMMANDED, in some good Protestant Form or Manner, agreeable to the Word of God, and agreeing (for Substance) with the Communion-Book and Book of Common-Prayer, he fulfils his Promise as far as under such Circumstances it can be thought to oblige him in Point of Conscience.—I believe, this is the Light in which the Case is considered at Home. Else what Account can be given of the public SLIGHT, there put upon Commissary Garden' s Consistorial Process against Mr. Whitefield at South-Carolina "for omitting to use the Form of Prayers prescribed in the Communion-Book", when officiating in a Presbyterian Congregation? For Mr. W—d having interposed an Appeal in the Cause, from Mr. Commissary's spiritual Court to his MAJESTY in the high Court of Chancery, though' when returned to England he attempted bona fide to prosecute his said Appeal, yet could not prevail with the Lord's appointed by his Majesty's Commission, so much as to meet once on the Affair • ;—they thinking, no Doubt, with sufficient Contempt of Mr. Garden's invidious Proceedings not to say usurped Power.—The Conduct of the Bishops, and in particular of the Bishop of London, the reputed Plantation-Diocesan, towards Mr. Whitefield, in not exerting themselves on this Occasion, either to promote a Hearing upon his Appeal, or to censure him in some ecclesiastical Court according to Canon, as a Revolter after Subscription, this their Conduct (I say) is to me unaccountable, unless we resolve the Reason of it into this, that they were conscious of his Innocence, as the Fact charged upon him was done in a Place not contained within the Limits originally intended in the Clergy-Subscription and Promise to use the Church-Forms, and none other. —Our Author, I suppose, has that Charity for the PRELATES of England, to think "'tis with them, as well as with himself, no light matter for a Man to violate his Promise, " especially in so sacred an Affair: but their Lordships not taking hold of the Occasion given 'em by the Appeal, nor of any other Occasion, to deal with Mr. W—d according to their Rules of Discipline, but letting him go FREE OF PUBLICK CENSURE, is a loud Intimation, that they despair of being able to prove the Crime upon him, of violating his Promise, and that therefore the Penalties, denounced in that Case, are not legally due to him. And as "certainly as it stands him instead, to clear up his Character in this Matter," so certainly I think, this Conduct of Public Authority at home (whatever Mr. Garden, or our Author may judge of it) is sufficient for that purpose; and I believe, will be thought, by the reasonable and unprejudic'd part of the World, at least sufficient "to excuse him [in their Eyes] from aggravated Prevarication, " which our Author says "there are Many who know not how to excuse him from, to say nothing worse. "—What worse, he might think could be said of Mr. W—d, I know not: however, this I am well persuaded of, that notwithstanding all the Noise about his violating his Promise, there's Nothing in it, but I believe it will be found only groundless Jealousy. And I wish, we may well consider, that 'tis no light Matter for a Man to accuse another of violating his Promise, especially an Elder, and in such a Case of more than ordinary Importance. —Nor can I devise how to excuse People's treating Mr. W—d's Character in this strange Manner, unless it be that they do it for want of due Consideration, or Acquaintance with these Things.

Our Author, in his next Paragraph (Page 4, & 5.) deals with Mr. W—d about his ITINERATION, which he thinks incongruous to the Character of a professed Minister of the Church of England, a Breach of his Ordination-Commission from the Bishop, &c. and therefore not consistent with Honesty.

I have nothing at all to do here, but to consider this Instance of Mr. W—d' s Conduct in point of Consistency, which is the View under which our Author objects to it. The Scope (I think) of the Argument here against his Itinerancy is, that " the Authority, which Mr. W—d as a Minister of the Church of England had given him by the Bishop, " was limited in the Exercise of it, to "the Congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereto."—To which I say, if his Ordination Commission did not give him Authority, as well to minister out of his particular Charge, as in it, then we may rationally conclude, his Ordination-Promise with Relation to the Exercise of that Authority, in using the Liturgy, respected him also only within his appointed Charge: and in this View of the Case, not his Subscription, not the Articles, or Orders, or Canons of the Church, but his Commission ought to have been objected to him before, at least to shorten the Dispute: Methinks, this Argument singly might have stood instar ominum. —Or, if his Commission (in its true Meaning) did empower him to minister out of his particular Cure and Charge, then I think our Author's Argument from this Commission carries no Force with it to condemn his Itineration. An Argument which proves too much, proves too little. But if the Words of the Commission be taken exactly in the Letter, without allowing a Latitude of Sense, this would disempower the Clergy so much as to exchange Pulpits, or assist one another occasionally; for this, by the foresaid Rule of Interpretation, would violate their Commission, as well as Itinerancy. Here's a Reductio ad absurdum, which I believe cannot easily be surmounted: But our Author must relinquish his Plea from the general Commission, and fly to a particular Licence.

And 'tis Fact, by the Concession of Episcopal Writers, that the Bishops (as also the two Universities in England. ) have the Power to grant Licences, of a wider Extent than the narrow District of a single Congregation or Parish, even through the largest City, or through a whole Diocese, and the Archbishops through a whole Province, if they please, to any ordained Ministers they think fit; "who in Virtue of such Licence, may travel, if they will, from Place to Place, as Itinerants. " The sending forth itinerant Preachers was a Practice in the Church of England at the Beginning of the Reformation; probably in some Degree has been kept up all along; or if obsolete for any Time, has remarkably been revived of late Years, particularly with Relation to foreign Parts. Mr. W—d is not the only Episcopal Itinerant in America. It's well known, that Itinerant Ministers (under this express Denomination) are avow'd by the Society at home for propagating the Gospel, who have at this very Time a Number on their Mission. Thus "Mr. Morris in the Abstract of their Proceedings, for 1743. is named expressly ITINERANT Missionary in Connecticut; Mr. Punderson, ITINERANT Missionary in New-England; Mr. Lindsay, ITINERANT Missionary in Pennsylvania and New-Jersey, " with others.—In the general Notion then, Ministers of this Character be judged agreeable to the Constitution of the Church of England, which our Author refers us to. We may well think, it's no Violation therefore of this original COMMISSION from the Bishop, to act beyond the Limits of a particular Cure or Charge, or even in the Character of an Itinerant. And with Regard to a special LICENCE, I question whether the Itinerant Missionaries above-mentioned have had this, anymore than Mr. W—d. I suppose they all have the common Letters of Orders from the Bishop: and why ordained Ministers maynit be thought sufficiently authorized to exercise their Office, without special Letters of Licence supervening, I cannot well understand. Nor does it appear to me a Breach of Canon, at least no Infraction upon the Oath of Canonical Obedience, to act without such a Licence. For the Oath is of Obedience to the Bishop; not directly to the Canons. The Bishop must interpose his Injunction, or Imposition, before the Canon becomes binding: and even in this Case (as I have already remark'd) the Clergy apprehend themselves still in Possession of a discretionary Power with Relation to their own Act of Submission and Obedience; the Tenor of the Oath being, to obey the Bishop only in omnibus •• citis & honestis. —I donit see then but that Mr. W—d, though acting in Character of an Itinerant, may still be acting a consistent Part as a Minister of the Church of England; which is all our Author calls us to consider.

There's one Thing more suggested in his LETTER ( pag. 5,) on this Head of Consistency, which brings us back again to the Article about using the Book of Common Prayer, which Mr. W—d subscrib'd to, and yet has since in a Journal made that Remark, "When the Spirit of Prayer began to be lost, then Forms of Prayer were invented;" and seems by the Connection of what he says there, to • hink "the Invention of them "a sad Symptom of the Decay of vital Religion, as much as even "Preaching by Notes. —Now, Sir, whether he was of this Sentiment when he subscrib'd, or has since changed his Mind, I donit see that the Consequences our Author infers, will in either View of the Case, necessarily follow.

If Mr. W—d in fact has changed his Mind about Forms in Devotion, I think he may nevertheless be consistent in blaming the Church-Clergy for violating their Subscription to the 39 Articles: for these were designed to secure Unity or Consent of Faith; and the Clergy's Subscription to these leaves them no Liberty to speak or write contrary to what they've subscrib'd; and hence, if in Points of Faith they "change their Minds" and teach contrary to their Subscription, they are not "capable of being vindicated in the same Way," as Mr. W—d is; unless it is not possible for a Man with a safe Conscience so much as occasionally to use any Forms of Prayer, while yet he has an unfavourable Opinion of the Rise of Forms. For it was only the Use of the Forms, that is respected in the Subscription, according to the Opinion of some of the best Defenders of the Church. According to their Sense of the Matter, Mr. W—d did not "subscribe to the Book of Common Prayer", properly speaking, i. e. did not (as our Author represents it) "subscribe to all Things contained in it." If you will read (Sir) the Controversy between Dr. Cal • my and his Adversaries about Conformity, you will find they declare, the true Meaning of the Subscription is, not to give unfeigned Assent and Consent to every Thing in the Common-prayer-book, but only to the Use of the Forms therein prescribed: And that this implies in its Nature an Approbation even of the Forms themselves (at the most) in Relation only to the Use, not the Imposition of them. Mr. W—d therefore having subscrib'd only to the Use of the Liturgy, might without violating his Subscription alter his Mind about the Rise of Forms, so long as this Change of Sentiment does not affect the Article he subscrib'd to, and is not such in its Nature as to be inconsistent with all Use of them, while he thinks the Matter of the Prayers agreeable to the Word of God, and the Case such as makes Submission to the Use of them expedient.—Whereas the Clergy's preaching contrary to, and condemning any of the 39 Articles, destroys Consent of Faith, subverts the very End of their Subscription, is a direct Violation of their Subscription, and does not well consist with their not renouncing it.

But indeed I see no Necessity of supposing a Change of Sentiment in Mr. W—d. For notwithstanding an unfavourable Opinion about the Rise of Forms of Prayer, yet so long as that Opinion was only such as might consist with the lawful using them, in some Circumstances, he might look on himself at Liberty notwithstanding, to subscribe to the Use of the Liturgy WITHIN THE CHURCH AND REALM, and might judge it expedient in his Case. For, as he might possibly be acted with a View to some peculiar Advantages (as he thought) to serve the Ends of the Ministry, within the Pale of the Establishment, Particularly in regard Episcopal Orders might "render his Ministry more currant & indisputable and acceptable among the Generality of the People of England: " So perhaps he was partly inclined to seek Admission into public Ministry, upon Principle in Relation to Episcopacy, which he might be strongly attach'd to, more than to the Liturgy, and might at the same Time think his Sentiment about the Rise of Forms of Prayer not a sufficient Ground of Separation from the Church of England. These and other Considerations, of Weight with him to persuade to his Continuance in the Communion of the Church, might more than counter balance his Opinion about the Occasion of Forms being invented: especially when by his Subscription to the Use of them in Public Prayer, he would obtain the valuable Liberty (as he thought) of ministering in the Public Churches, which he could not enjoy without complying with the Terms of the Legal Establishment; and especially too when his Subscription intended nothing more than a Declaration of Assent and Consent to the Use of the imposed Forms, with an Approbation of them only in Relation to their Matter, and to their Use in this Case of their imposition. For thus says the learned Mr. O •• y •• e, in his Defense of Ministerial Conformity.

—The Declaration respects only what belongs to the Act of the Subscribers, who may approve the Use of Forms, in various Degrees, and upon various Grounds; some merely judging them lawful, and Submission to the Use of them expedient, in their Case, upon weighing of all Circumstances,—notwithstanding their unfavourable Opinion of the original Occasion of Forms being introduced.—I believe, a great Part of the godly Reformers submitted to the English Liturgy, upon such Considerations as those: and such Views kept many of the ancient Puritans from breaking off from the established Church, they were generally against Separation, nor did they separate till they were persecuted and thrust out. This was very much the Case of our Forefathers, the first Planters of New-England: they stayed within the Pale of the established Church as long as they might enjoy the Liberty of their Conscience, in dispensing with some Ceremonies which they scrupled, and until the rigorous Imposition of Ministerial Conformity (in the highest Strain of it) at last drove them out, and obliged them to seek a Retreat in these Foreign Parts of the World.—I shall only add upon it, that when any Bishop shall see fit to cite Mr. Whitefield, as a Delinquent, into his spiritual Court at home, I believe, he stands ready to make his Defense: and Persecution may compel him to the Separation, which in the present posture of Things maynit appear to him either a Point of Duty or Expediency.

Alluding now to our Author' s Conclusion upon this last Head, I finish with expressing my fervent Wishes for us all, both Ministers and People, that we may have more of the wisdom which is from above, and may have this for our Rejoicing, even the Testimony of our Conscience, that in Simplicity and godly Sincerity, not with fleshly Wisdom, but by the Grace of God, we have our Conversation in the World: then, I believe, however we may differ in Sentiment, in some Cases of lesser Importance, we shall not divide in Affection. Yet if Paul and Barnabas contend too sharply, God can overrule even this for the Furtherance of the Gospel.

Bear me (Sir) upon your Heart at the Throne of Grace; and assure yourself,