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 I am in orders, if I am a minister still, and yet not a minister of the Church of England, of what church am la 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 consequence 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 com

munion?" 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.

"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, show where the church gave you such authority of controlling and regulating it?" Authority of putting disorderly members out of that society? The 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 uncontrolled." 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. 154, 155.

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.

8. Your general conclusion is, "Whatever your pretences or

professions may be, you can be looked upon by serious and impar tial 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.)

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. I 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. 2. Wherever I can, I preach the gospel. 3. Those who desire to live the gospel I advise how to watch over each other, and to put from them such as walk disorderly. Now whether these things are, on other considerations, right or wrong, this single point I must still insist on: "All this does not prove, either that I am no member, or that I am no minister of the Church of England." Nay, nothing can prove, I am no member of the church, till I either am excommunicated, or renounce her communion, and no longer join in her doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer. Nor can any thing prove I am no minister of the church, till I either am deposed from my ministry, or voluntarily renounce her, and wholly cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her rubricks for conscience' sake.

However, I grant, that whatsoever is "urged on this head, deserves my most serious consideration." And whensoever I am convinced, that by taking any methods, more or less different from those I now take, I may better "consult the honour of religion, and be able to do more good in the world ;" by the grace of God, I shall not persist in these one hour, but instantly choose the more excel

lent way.

IV. 1. What you urge on the head of enthusiasm also, I think "deserves my most serious consideration." (You may add, “ and presumption." I let it drop once more; because I do not love tautology; and because I look upon presumption to be essential to enthusiasm, and, consequently, contained therein. I will, therefore, weigh what you advance concerning it, and explain myself something more at large.

"I am to examine," you say, (p. 120,) "how far you have cleared yourself of enthusiasm. My account of this you set down, making as many alterations and omissions as there are lines." Perhaps more; for I never designed to recite the whole, but only the material part of it. "If you did not wholly approve of it, why would

you not let me know, what you disliked in it ?" Because I do not love many words. Therefore when the argument stood thus: "He that does this is an enthusiast but you do this:" I was generally content with answering the 2d proposition, and leaving the first as I found it.

"I laid this charge against you and the Methodists in general: between you every part of the character has been verified." I answer for one; let the rest answer for themselves,-if they have not better employment. That the question between us may be the more fully understood, I shall briefly compare together, 1. Your remarks. 2. My answer. 3. Your reply: though still I cannot promise to repeat your words at length.

2. You remark, (p. 60,) "Though you would be thought an encmy to enthusiasm and presumption, yet in both, you are free from being inferior to the Moravians, or indeed to any others:" [strong assertions, not inferior to any others? Not to the French prophets, or John of Leyden ?] "1. Enthusiasm is, a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men to such conduct, as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance." I answer, (p. 38,) Before this touches me, you are to prove, (which I conceive you have not done yet,) that my conduct is such, as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance." You reply (p. 120.) “This, I think, is proved in the preceding tract." I think not. Let men of candour judge. Yet I am persuaded, there was such an assistance at some times. You have also to prove that this was a false persuasion.

6

You remark, 2. "An enthusiast is then sincere, but mistaken." (p. 61.) I answered, That I am mistaken remains to be proved.' You reply, "The world must judge." Agreed, if by the world you mean, men of reason and religion.

You remark, 3. "His intentions must be good but his actions will be most abominable." I answered, What actions of mine are most abominable? You reply, "The world must be judge, whether your public actions have not been in many respects abominable." I am glad the charge softens. I hope by and by you will think they are only abominable in some respects.

You remark, 4. "Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only secret persuasion or impulse." 1 answered, I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the rule of all my actions, and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof, than I follow Mahomet or Confucius.' You reply (p. 121,) "You fall again into your strain of boasting, as if declarations could have any weight against facts; assert, that you make the word of God the rule of all your actions,' and that I perhaps do not know many persons.""-Stop, Sir. You are stepping over one or two points, which I have not done with.

You remark, 5. "Instead of judging of his spiritual estate, by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies," &c. I

answered,Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. judge of my spiritual estate by the improvement of my heart, and the tenor of my life conjointly. To this I do not perceive you reply one word. Herein then I am not an enthusiast.

You remark, 6. "He is very liable to err-not considering things coolly and carefully." I answered, So indeed I am : I find it every day more and more. But I do not yet find, that this is owing to my want of "considering things coolly and carefully." Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take, (p. 39.) Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants! You reply, "Your private life I have nothing to do with" and then enlarge on my "method of consulting Scripture," and of using lots: of both which by and by. But, mean time, observe this does not affect the question. For I neither east lots, nor use that method at all, till I have considered things with all the care I can. So that, be this right or wrong, it is no manner of proof, that I do not " carefully consider every step I take."

But how little did I profit by begging your exeuse, suppose I had spoken a word unguardedly? O Sir, you put me in mind of him who said, I know not to show mercy! You have need never to fight, but when you are sure to conquer: seeing you are resolved neither to give nor take quarter.

You remark, 7. "He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the direction of God's Spirit." I answered, I am very difficult to be convinced by dry blows or hard names. But not by reason or argument. At least that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention. For I claim no other direction of God's Spirit than is common to all believers.'

You reply (p. 124) 1.-"I fear this will not be easily reconcileable to your past pretences and behaviour." I believe it will; in particular to what I speak of the light I received from God in that important affair. (Vol. I. p. 241.) But as to the directions in general of the Spirit of God, we very probably differ in this; you apprehend those directions to be extraordinary, which I suppose to be common to all believers.

You remark, S. "Whoever opposes him will be charged with resisting or rejecting the Spirit." I answered, What! Whoever opposes me, John Wesley? Do I charge every such person with rejecting the Spirit? No more than I charge him with robbing on the highway.-Do I charge you with rejecting the Spirit?" You reply, "You deny that you charge the opposers with rejecting the Spirit, and affirm, that you never said or thought, that what you do is to be accounted the work of God." Here you blend different sentences together, which I must consider apart, as they were written. And first, where do I charge you with rejecting the Spirit?. If I charge whoever opposes me with this, undoubtedly I charge you. If I do not charge you, that proposition is false; I do not so