"You have the word, and we have the fword," faid the Popish Prolocutor Weston, when he felt his inability to cope with the fcriptural authorities, by which his Proteftant opponents, the Fathers of the English Church, fupported their opinions. They had the fword; and they used it. The language of our accufers may warrant a wish, that the sword may never fall into their hands; left a repetition of the fcenes, which defolated the Church in a fomewhat later moft melancholy and eventful period of our hiftory, fhould convince us by fad experience, as the originals convinced our forefathers; that bigotry and intolerance are not confined to the adherents of Popery; and that higher degrees of charity are not always found to accompany pretenfions to fuperior purity of faith. IV. It deferves to be remarked, that the charge is vague and undefined. Often indeed it is alleged by men, who have as indiftinct a notion of the Gofpel, as they have an imperfect acquaintance with the preaching of the clergy. But taking it in the moft favourable light, as alleged by the more informed of our accufers, it is still of fo fluctuating an import, as to defy all attempts to fatisfy it. That we do not preach the Gospel, is the charge ad Ridley's Life of Bp. Ridley, book vii. p. 488. vanced by our various enemies; a charge, to appearance the fame with all of them, but in substance irreconcilably different. For let us reflect an inftant on the persons, by whom it is advanced; men, like Ephraim and Manaffeh combined together against Judah, as widely at variance with each other, as either of them can be hoftile to us :-men, who have no other principle of harmony, than that which united Herod and Pontius Pilate in the perfecution of Chrift :-men, who have exprefsly "accufed each other, of preaching "damnable and effentially erroneous doc"trines, horrid blafphemies, another gofpel, "and the like'." What then is it poffible that we can do, to filence the clamour of our accufers? Shall we espouse the fentiments of the Wesleyan Methodist? The charge will still be levelled against us by the Calvinift; and we may be rebuked in the language of Whitefield, when he told his rival in their fchifm, that "they preached two different gofpels; and "therefore he not only would not join with, or give him the right hand of fellowship, "but was refolved to preach against him and "his brother, wherefoever he preached at all." If. ix. 21. • See Enthusiasm of Methodists, &c. part ii. Preface, p. xxi. • Coke's Life of Wesley, p. 214. Shall we range ourselves under the banners of the Calvinift? This will hardly content the followers of Wesley, who declared, that "he "had an immediate call from God to publish "to the world, that Mr. Whitefield's doctrine "was highly injurious to Chrift." Let us deter Shall we then ftill take the Or fuppofe that we could decide in favour of fome great divifion of our accufers; the fame difficulty would occur, as to the fubdivifion, which we fhould adopt. mine on the party of Wesley. attach ourselves to thofe, who lead in the regular connection; or to thofe, who have separated from it, by reafon of a diverfity of opinion on fome important doctrinal points, whereon they claim the fanction of the authority of the original Founder of the sect "? Let us declare ourselves of the Calviniftic party. Shall we then maintain "the rigours "of the fyftem," in conformity with its fundamental principles; and agreeably to the doctrines of Calvin, and of confiftent Calvinifts, and to the declarations of the Lambeth Articles or fhall we profefs ourselves the advocates of "a milder and more moderate Cal. *vinifm," and "abfolutely difavow the doc"trine of abfolute decrees and abfolute repro Nott's Bampton Lectures, p. 248. note. "bation," as an extravagant and frightful system? Or fuppofe again, that this difficulty was furmounted; and that our election was made, not only of the fect but of the sectary, not only of the party but of the man, that shall have dominion over our faith. Inconfiftent as our accufers are with themselves, as well as at variance with each other, by what rule fhall we be guided in diftinguishing between those opinions of the individual, which we shall ef pouse, as of evangelical purity: and thofe, which we fhall reject, as a departure from it? Taking, for inftance, the Apologift of moderate Calvinism for our guide, fhall we with him affert, that "the fundamental principles, on which "the Calviniftic fyftem refts, are incontroverti"ble;" or fhall we unite with him in renouncing fome of those principles, until we have ftripped Calvinism of its characteristic features, as a fyftem of faith; and made of it a mutilated ftructure, which its founder would have derided, as the edifice of childishness and folly? Attaching ourselves to another celebrated champion of our self-denominated evangelical brethren, shall we teach our people that the falvation offered by the Gospel is "wholly un"conditional," and irreverfibly determined by * Overton's True Churchmen, &c. the abfolute will of God; or fhall we reprefent it, as depending upon men's improvement of the opportunity of grace offered ? With Whitefield, fhall we preach univerfal, or partial, redemption? the defectibility, or the indefectibility, of grace? Shall we expoftulate with our hearers for not choofing to be converted, or fhall we tell them that their converfion is not of their own free will? With Wesley fhall we contend, that a man can "have all the mind that was in Chrift, and "alway walk as he walked;" or fhall we deny that any man can be "abfolutely per"fect?" Shall we affert, that a man cannot have living faith, without knowing that he hath it? or that he may be juftified, that is, may have this living faith, yet not know it, till a long time after*? Shall we affirm “ the "condition of our acceptance with God to be "not our holinefs either of heart or life, but "faith alone, faith as contradiftinguished from "holinefs, as well as from good works;" or fhall we contend for a "faith, which is neceffarily inclufive of all good works and all "holinefs";" or fhall we maintain it as a po See Hawker's Prop against all Despair, p. 11. Mifericordia, p. 43, 65. * See Tucker's History of the Principles of Methodifm, p. 20, 32. * See Nott's Bampton Lectures, p. 246. |