principles of Logic? Can one in ten of the Clergy, or of the Masters of Arts in either University, when an argument is brought, tell you even the mood and figure wherein it is proposed ?" &c.

"It will easily be observed, that I do not depreciate learning of any kind. The knowledge of the languages is a valuable talent; so is the knowledge of the arts and sciences: both the one and the other may be employed to the glory of God and the good of man. But yet I ask, where hath God declared in his word that he cannot, or will not, make use of men that have it not? Has Moses, or any of the prophets affirmed this? Or our Lord? Or any of his apostles? You are sensible all these are against you; you know the apostles themselves, all except Paul, were common, unphilosophical, unlettered men.' "I am

Speaking of the lay-preachers, he says, bold to affirm that these unlettered men have help from God, for the great work, the saving souls from death; seeing he hath enabled, and doth enable them still, to turn many to righteousness. Thus hath he despised the wisdom of the wise, and brought to nought the understanding of the prudent. Indeed, in the one thing which they profess to know, they are not ignorant men; I trust there is not one of them who is not able to go through such an examination in substantial, practical, experimental divinity, as few of our candidates for holy orders, even in the universities, are able to do. But, oh! What manner of examination do most of those candidates go through? And what proof are the testimonials commonly brought either of their piety or knowledge, to whom are intrusted those sheep which God hath purchased with his own blood?"

"But," says the objector, "they are laymen." Wesley acknowledges, that some years ago,

to touch this was to touch the apple of his eye. "And this," says he, "makes me almost unwilling to speak now, lest I should shock the prejudices which I cannot remove. Suffer me, however, just to intimate to you some things, which I would leave to your further consideration. The Scribes of old, who were the ordinary preachers among the Jews, were not priests, they were no better than lay-men; yea, many of them were incapable of the priesthood, being of the tribe of Simeon, not of Levi. Hence probably it was, that the Jews themselves never urged it as an objection to our Lord's preaching, (even those who did not acknowledge or believe that he was sent of God in an extraordinary character) that he was no priest after the order of Aaron. Nor indeed could he be, seeing he was of the tribe of Judah. Nor does it appear that any objected this to the apostles. So far from it, that at Antioch, in Pisidia, we find the ruler of the synagogue sending unto Paul and Barnabas, strangers just come into the city, saying, men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on;" Acts xiii. 15.

66

"If we consider these things" says he, "we shall be less surprised at what occurs in the 8th chapter of the Acts:-"At that time there was a great persecution against the church, and they were all scattered abroad:" [i. e. all the church, all the believers in Jesus, throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria; v. 1.] Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every-where preaching the word: v. 4. Now, what shadow of reason have we to say or think that all these were ordained before they preached ?"

"If we come to later times, was Mr. Calvin ordained? Was he either priest or deacon? And were not most of those whom it pleased God to

employ in promoting the Reformation abroad, laymen also? Could that great work have been promoted at all, in many places, if laymen had not preached? And yet how seldom do the very Papists urge this as an objection against the Reformation? Nay, as rigorous as they are in things of this kind, they themselves appoint, even in some of their strictest orders, that "if any laybrother believes himself called of God, to preach as a missionary, the superior of the order, being informed thereof, shall immediately send hm away."

"In all Protestant churches, it is still more evident, that ordination is not held a necessary pre-requisite for preaching; for in Sweden, in Germany, in Holland, and, I believe, in every reformed church in Europe, it is not only permitted, but required, that before any one is ordained, (before he is admitted even into deacon's orders, wherever the distinction between priests and deacons is retained,) he shall publicly preach a year, or more, as a probationer. And for this practice they believe they have the authority of an express command of God:-"Let these first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless:" 1 Tim. iii. 10.

Mr. Wesley then further remarks, that what might be called preaching, is done in a hundred churches in England by laymen. He says preaching is to publish the word of God, and that this is done all over England by laymen, particularly: under the eye of every bishop in the nation. He says, in proof of his assertion, that in many places the parish-clerk reads one of the lessons, and sometimes the whole service of the church, and that other laymen constantly do the same thing, yea, in our very cathedrals. Nay, he says, it is done in the universities themselves; and, he adds,

that a man may be a doctor of divinity, even in Oxford, though he never was ordained at all. However he did not rest his cause on these examples, but believed it might be defended a shorter way, that is, by the importance and necessity of the case.-God, he says, called many sinners to repentance by two or three clergymen : other clergymen should have helped them, but instead of this they hindered them: no expedient remained but to employ faithful laymen, who had a sound judgment in the things of God; the expedient was tried, and God immediately gave his blessing. "In several places," says Mr. Wesley, "by means of these plain men, not only those who had already begun to run well were hindered from turning back to perdition, but other sinners also, from time to time, were converted from the error of their ways.

66

But," says the objector, " for these laymen to exhort at all is a violation of order." Mr. Wesley asks, What is this order of which you speak? Will it serve instead of the knowledge and love of God? Will this order rescue those from the snare of the devil who are now taken captive_at his will? Will it keep them who are escaped a little way, from turning back to Egypt? If not, how should I answer it to God, if, rather than violate I know not what order, I should sacrifice thousands of souls thereto? I dare not do it. It is at the peril of my own soul. Indeed, if by order were meant true christian discipline, whereby all the living members of Christ are knit together in one, and all that are putrid and dead immediately cut off from the body; this order I reverence, for it is of God. But where is it to be found? In what diocese? In what town or parish, within England or Wales? It is plain, then, that what order is to be found, is not among

you, who so loudly contend for it, but among that very people whom you continually blame for their violation and contempt of it."

Another objector says, "when you bring your credentials with you, when you prove by miracles what you assert, then we will acknowledge that God hath sent you."

个

In answer to this, Mr. Wesley observes, that the Papists continually made this demand of the Protestants, at the time of the Reformation; but that the Reformers replied-doctrines were not to be proved by miracles, but by scripture and reason, and if necessary, by antiquity. He adds, are we to prove by miracles that A. B. was, for many years, without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, a sabbath-breaker? Or that he is not so now? Or that he continued so till he heard us preach, and from that time was another man? Not so;-the proper way to prove these facts is by the testimony of competent witnesses; and these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them.

Mr. Wesley next answers to the accusation of schism: "the damnable sin of schism." He admits that schism is separation from the church, and yet asserts that every separation from the church to which we once belonged is not schism. If this be not admitted, says he, all the English will be made schismatics in separating from the church of Rome. But," says the objector, "we had a just cause." "So doubtless, says Mr. Wesley, we had; whereas schism is a causeless separation from the church of Christ. So far so good. But you have many steps to take before you can make good that conclusion, that a separation from a particular national church, such as the church of England is, whether with sufficient cause or without, comes under the scriptural notion of schism