To the Earl of Dartmouth (?) Date: LIVERPOOL, April 10, 1761. DEAR SIR, 1. In order to answer the question more clearly which Mr. Downing See previous letter.' has proposed to you, it may be well look a little backward. Some years since, two or three clergymen of the Church of England, who were above measure zealous for all her rules and orders, were convinced that religion is not an external thing, but 'righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,' and that this righteousness and peace and joy are given only to those who are justified by faith. As soon as they were convinced of these great truths, they preached them; and multitudes flocked to hear. For these reasons, and no others, real or pretended (for as yet they were strictly regular), because they preached such doctrine, and because such multitudes followed them, they were forbid to preach in the churches. Not daring to be silent, they preached elsewhere, in a school, by a river-side, or upon a mountain; and more and more sinners forsook their sins and were filled with peace and joy in believing. 2. But at the same time huge offence was taken at their 'gathering congregations' in so irregular a manner; and it was asked, (1) 'Do you judge that the Church with the authority of the State has power to enact laws for her own government?' I answer: If a dispensation of the gospel is committed to me, no Church has power to enjoin me silence. Neither has the State; though it may abuse its power and enact laws whereby I suffer for preaching the gospel. (2) 'Do you judge it your duty to submit to the laws of the Church and State as far as they are consistent with a good conscience?' I do. But 'woe is me if I preach not the gospel': this is not consistent with a good conscience. (3) 'Is it a law of the Church and State that none of her ministers shall gather congregations but by the appointment of the bishop? If any do, does not she forbid her people to attend them? Are they not subversive of the good order of the Church? Do you judge there is anything sinful in such a law?'

I answer: (I) If there is a law that a minister of Christ who is not suffered to preach the gospel in the church should not preach it elsewhere, I do judge that law to be absolutely sinful. (ii) If that law forbids Christian people to hear the gospel of Christ out of their parish church when they cannot hear it therein, I judge it would be sinful for them to obey it. (iii) This preaching is not subversive of any good order whatever. It is only subversive of that vile abuse of the good order of our Church whereby men who neither preach nor live the gospel are suffered publicly to overturn it from the foundation, and in the room of it to palm upon their congregations a wretched mixture of dead form and maimed morality. (4) 'If these premises be allowed.' They cannot be allowed. So, from nothing, nothing follows. 3. It was objected farther, (1) 'In every nation there must be some settled order of government, ecclesiastical and civil.' There must; but put civil out of the question. It only tends to puzzle the cause. (2) 'The Scriptures likewise enjoin this.' They do, that all things in the church be done in order. (3) 'There is an ecclesiastical order established in England, and it is a lawful one.' I believe it is in general not only lawful but highly commendable. (4) 'But Mr. Downing tells you: " You are born under this Establishment. Your ancestors supported it, and were ennobled on that account." These points, I think, are not very material; but that which follows is. " You have by deliberate and repeated acts of your own engaged yourself to defend it. Your very rank and station constitute you a formal and eminent guardian of it."'

A guardian of what? What is it that you have 'deliberately engaged yourself to defend'? The constitution of the Church of England. And is not her doctrine a main part of this constitution? a far more essential part thereof than any rule of external order? Of this, then, you are a formal guardian; and you have deliberately engaged yourself to defend it. But have you deliberately engaged to defend her orders to the destruction of her doctrine? Are you a guardian of this external circumstance when it tends to destroy the substance of her constitution? And if you are engaged, at all events, to defend her order, are you also to defend the abuse of it? Surely no. Your rank, your station, your honour, your conscience, all engage you to oppose this. (5) 'But how can it consist with the duty arising from all these to give encouragement, countenance, and support to principles and practices that are a direct renunciation of the established constitution, and that in their genuine issue' (or natural tendency) 'are totally subversive of it?' Are the principles of those clergymen a direct renunciation of the established constitution? Are their practices so? Are either the one or the other 'totally subversive of it'? Not so: their fundamental principles are the very principles of the Established Church. So is their practice too; save in a very few points, wherein they are constrained to deviate. Therefore it is no ways inconsistent with your duty to encourage, countenance, and support them; especially seeing they have no alternative. They must either be thus far irregular or destroy their own souls, and let thousands of their brethren perish for lack of knowledge. (6) Nay, but their 'principles and practices are of this character. For (I) They gather congregations and exercise their ministerial office therein in every part of this kingdom, directly contrary to the restraint laid on them at their ordination and to the design of that parochial distribution of duty settled throughout this nation. (ii) They maintain it lawful for men to preach who are not episcopally ordained, and thereby contradict the Twenty-third Article. (iii) They disclaim all right in the bishops to control them in any of these matters, and say that, rather than be so controlled, they would renounce all communion with this Church. (iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.'

I answer: (I) They do gather congregations everywhere and exercise their ministerial office therein. But this is not contrary to any restraint which was laid upon them at their ordination; for they were not ordained to serve any particular parish. And it is remarkable that Lincoln College was founded ad propagandam Christianam fidem et extirpandas haereses. 'For propagating the Christian faith and extirpating heresies.' See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. 111. 5. But were it otherwise, suppose a parish minister to be either ignorant or negligent of his duty, and one of his flock adjures me for Christ's sake to tell him what he must do to be saved, was it ever the design of our Church that I should refuse to do it because he is not of my parish? '(ii) They maintain it lawful for men to preach who are not episcopally ordained.' In some circumstances they do; particularly where thousands are rushing into destruction, and those who are ordained and appointed to watch over them neither care for nor know how to help them. 'But hereby they contradict the Twenty-third Article, to which they have subscribed.' They subscribed it in the simplicity of their hearts, when they firmly believed none but Episcopal ordination valid. But Bishop Stillingfleet has since fully convinced them this was an entire mistake. See letter of July 16, 1755. '(iii) They disclaim all right in the bishops to control them in any of these matters.' In every point of an indifferent nature they obey the bishops for conscience' sake; but they think Episcopal authority cannot reverse what is fixed by divine authority. Yet they are determined never to renounce communion with the Church unless they are cast out headlong. If it be said, 'Nay, but if I varied from the Church at all, I would throw off my gown and be a professed Dissenter,' what! would you profess to dissent when you did not? If you would, they dare not do it. They love the Church, and therefore keep to all her doctrine and rules as far as possibly they can; and if they vary at all, it shall not be an hair's breadth farther than they cannot help. '(iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.' Indeed they do not: the bulk of their followers know just nothing of the matter.

'(iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.' Indeed they do not: the bulk of their followers know just nothing of the matter. They industriously propagate among them nothing but inward and outward holiness. (7) 'Now these are oppositions to the most fundamental principles and essentially constituent parts of our Establishment; and not of ours only, but of every ecclesiastical Establishment that is or ever has been in the Christian world.' 'The most fundamental principles'! No more than the tiles are the most fundamental principles of an house. Useful, doubtless, they are; yet you must take them off if you would repair the rotten timber beneath. 'Essentially constituent parts of our Establishment'! Well, we will not quarrel for a word. Perhaps the doors may be essentially constituent parts of the building we call a church. Yet, if it were on fire, we might innocently break them open or even throw them for a time off the hinges. Now this is really the case. The timber is rotten yea, the main beams of the house; and they want to place that firm beam, salvation by faith, in the room of salvation by works. A fire is kindled in the Church, the house of the living God: the fire of love of the world, ambition, covetousness, envy, anger, malice, bitter zeal in one word, of ungodliness and unrighteousness. Oh who will come and help to quench it? Under disadvantages and discouragements of every kind, a little handful of men have made a beginning; and I trust they will not leave off till the building is saved or they sink in the ruins of it. 4. To sum up the whole. A few irregular men openly witness those truths of God which the regular clergy (a few excepted) either suppress or wholly deny. Their word is accompanied with the power of God, convincing and converting sinners. The word of those is not accompanied with power: it neither wounds nor heals. The former witness the truth and the power of God by their own life and conversation: therefore the world, men who know not God, hate them and speak all manner of evil against them falsely. The latter are of the world: therefore the world loves its own and speaks honourably of them.

Which of these ought you to hear, those who declare or those who deny the truth of God? that word which is the power of God unto salvation, or that which lulls men on to destruction? the men who live as well as preach the gospel, or those whose lives are no better than their doctrine? 'But they are irregular.' I answer: (1) That is not their choice. They must either preach irregularly or not at all. (2) Is such a circumstance of weight to turn the scale against the substance of the gospel? If it is, if none ought to speak or hear the truth of God unless in a regular manner, then (to mention but one consequence) there never could have been any reformation from Popery. For here the entire argument for Church order would have stood in its full force. Suppose one had asked a German nobleman to hear Martin Luther preach; might not his priest have said (without debating whether he preached the truth or not): 'My lord, in every nation there must be some settled order of government, ecclesiastical and civil. There is an ecclesiastical order established in Germany. You are born under this Establishment. Your ancestors supported it, and your very rank and station constitute you a formal and eminent guardian of it. How, then, can it consist with the duty arising from all these to give encouragement, countenance, and support to principles and practices that are a direct renunciation of the established constitution?' Had the force of this reasoning been allowed, what had become of the Reformation? Yet it was right; though it really was a subversion of the whole ecclesiastical constitution with regard to doctrine as well as discipline. Whereas this is no such thing. The doctrine of the Established Church, which is far the most essential part of her constitution, these preachers manifestly confirm, in opposition to those who subvert it. And it is the opposition made to them by those subverters which constrains them in some respects to deviate from her discipline; to which in all others they conform for conscience. Oh what pity that any who preach the same doctrine, and whom those subverters have not yet been able to thrust out, should join with them against their brethren in the common faith and fellow witnesses of the common salvation! I am, dear sir, Your willing servant for Christ's sake.