Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.'

[ocr errors]

You reply, "There is great difference between preaching occasionally-with the leave of the incumbent, and doing it constantly without their leave." I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter, which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this head. They do not in the least affect this consequence, "If every priest, when ordained, is expressly limited, touching the exercise of the power then received, to that congregation to which he shall be appointed; then is he precluded by this express limitation, from preaching, with or without the incumbent's leave, in any other congregation whatever."

-I answered, 4. Is it not, in fact, universally allowed, that every priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his. ordination, to preach-in any congregation, where the curate desires his assistance?".

1

You reply to this by what you judge a parallel case. But it does not touch the restriction in question. Either this does, or does not expressly limit the exercise of the powers conferred upon a priest in his ordination, to that congregation whereunto he shall be appointed. If it does not, I am not condemned by this; however faulty 1 may be on a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every priest condemned who ever preaches out of the congregation to which he is appointed.

Your parallel case is this "Because a man does not offend against the law of the land, when I prevail upon him to teach my children.-Therefore he is empowered to seize" [read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing] "an apartment in my house, and against my will and approbation to continue therein, and to direct and dictate to my family!" (p. 11.)

An exact parallel indeed! When therefore I came to live in St. Luke's parish, was it just the same thing as if I had "seized an apartment in Dr. Buckley's house?" And was the "continuing therein against his will and approba

tion" (supposing it were so) precisely the same, as if I had continued in his house, whether he would or not? Is the one exactly the same "offence against the law of the land" as the other? Once more. Is the warning sinners in Moorfields, to flee from the wrath to come, the very same with directing the Dr.'s family under his own roof?—I should not have answered this, but that I was afraid you would conclude it was unanswerable.

: I answered the former objector, 5. Before those words which you suppose to imply such a restraint-were those spoken without any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an indelible. character, Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands.'

You reply, "The question is not, whether you are in ́orders, or not?" p. 12.-I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was." But whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the Church of England.”—Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly to be interpreted, of preaching only in a single congregation. But I have given my reasons, why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated.

I would only add, if 1 am in orders, if I am a minister still, and yet not a minister of the Church of England, of what church am I a minister? Whoever is a minister at all, is a minister of some particular church. Neither can he cease to be a minister of that church, till he is cast out of it by a judicial sentence. Till therefore I am so cast out, (which I trust will never be,) I must style myself, a minister of the Church of England.

6. Your next objection is, "You not only erect bands, which, after the Moravians, you call the United Society, but also give out tickets to those that continue therein.”—These bands, you think, "have had very bad consequences, as was to be expected, when weak people are made leaders of their brethren, and are set upon expounding Scripture." Ibid. You are in some mistakes here. For, 1. The bands

are not called the United Society. 2. The United Society was originally so called, not after the Moravians, but because it consisted of several smaller societies united together. 3. Neither the bands, nor the leaders of them, as such, are set upon expounding Scripture. 4. The good consequences of their meeting together in bands, I know: but the very bad consequences I know not.

When any members of these, or of the United Society, are proved to live in known sin, we then mark and avoid them; we separate ourselves from every one that walks disorderly. Sometimes, if the case be judged infectious (though rarely,) this is openly declared. And this you style "excommunication," and say, "Does not every one see a separate, ecclesiastical society or communion?" (page 13.)—No. This society does not separate from the communion of the rest of the Church of England. They continue steadfastly with them, both in the apostolical doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers,' (which neither Mr. St. nor Mr. Si. does: nor the gentleman who writes to you in favour of the Moravians: who also writes pressingly to me to separate myself from the church) a society "over which you had appointed yourself a governor."-No: so far as I governed them, it was at their own entreaty." And took upon you all the spiritual authority, which the very highest church governor could claim."-What! At Kingswood? In February 1740-1? Not so. I took upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any steward of a society exerts by the consent of the other members. I did neither more nor less than declare, that they who had broken our rules, were no longer of our society.

"Can you pretend that you received this authority from our church?"-Not by ordination; for I did not exert it as a priest: but as one whom that society had voluntarily chosen to be at the head of them." Or that you exercised it in subjection, or subordination to her lawful governors?" I think so; I am sure I did not exercise it in any designed opposition to them." Did you ever think proper to consult or advise with them, about fixing the terms of

your communion?" If you mean about fixing the rules of admitting or excluding from our society: I never did think it either needful or proper. Nor do I, at this day.

The

"How then will you vindicate all these powers ?”—All these are, 'Declaring those are no longer of our society.' "Here is a manifest congregation. Either it belonged to the Church of England, or not. If it did not, you set up a separate communion against her. And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from her?"I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false. Therefore the consequent falls of course. "If it did belong to the church, shew where the church gave you such authority of controling and regulating it?" Authority of putting disorderly members out of that society? society. itself gave me that authority. "What private clergyman can plead her commission, to be thus a judge and ordinary, even in his own parish?" Any clergyman or layman, without pleading her commission, may be thus a judge and ordinary. "Are not these powers inherent in her governors, and committed to the higher order of her clergy?" No: not the power of excluding members from a private society,-unless on supposition of some such rule as ours is, viz. That if any man separate from the church, he is no longer a member of our society.'

7. But you have more proof yet. "The grand jury in Georgia found, that you had called yourself ordinary of Savannah. Nor was this fact contradicted even by those of the jury, who you say wrote in your favour. So that it appears, you have long had an inclination, to be independent and uncontroled." This argument ought to be good; for it is far fetched. The plain case was this. That grand jury did assert, That in Mr. Causton's hearing, I had called myself ordinary of Savannah.' The minority of the jury, in their letter to the trustees, refuted the other allegations particularly: but thought this so idle an one, that they did not deign to give it any farther reply, than- As to the eighth bill we are in doubt, as not well knowing the meaning of the word ordinary.' See Vol. I. p. 229, 230.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

You add, "I appeal to any reasonable man, whether you have not acted as an ordinary; nay, a bishop in Kingswood." If you mean, in declaring those disorderly members were no longer of that society,' I admit your appeal, whether I therein acted as a bishop, or as any steward of a society may." Nay you have gone far beyond the generality of the dissenters themselves; who do not commit the power of excommunication, and appointing to preach”(that is another question) "to the hands of any private minister. The powers of excommunication." True; but this was not excommunication, but a quite different thing.— How far, in what circumstances, and in what sense, I have appointed men to preach, I have explained at large in the third part of the Farther Appeal. But I wait for farther light; and am ready to consider, as I am able, whatever shall be replied to what is there advanced.

[ocr errors]

8. Your general conclusion is, "Whatever your pretences or professions may be, you can be looked upon by serious and impartial persons, (not as a member, much less a minister of the Church of England,) but as no other than an enemy to her constitution, worship, and doctrine, raising divisions and disturbances in her communion; (p. 76,) and yet you say, 'I cannot have greater regard to her rules'--'I dare not renounce communion with her.' (p. 15.)

[ocr errors]

I do say so still. I cannot have a greater regard to any human rules, than to follow them in all things, unless where I apprehend there is a divine rule to the contrary. I dare not renounce communion with the Church of England. As a minister, I teach her doctrines. I use her offices. It conform to her rubricks. I suffer reproach for my attachment to her. As a private member I hold her doctrines. I join in her offices, in prayer, in hearing, in communicating. I expect every reasonable man, touching these facts, to believe his own eyes and ears. But if these facts are so, how dare any man of common sense, charge me with renouncing the Church of England?

9. Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of this matter is, 1. I often use extemporary prayer.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »