Part 79

But, my Lords, what can this author mean by writing thus? for supposing the practice of itinerant preaching was primarily occasioned by the low talents of many incumbents in the more early days of the reformation, does it therefore follow, that there can be no other just cause assigned for itinerant preaching now? What if the generality of the present incumbents depart from the good old doctrines that were preached in the more early days of the reformation, and notwithstanding their liberal education, make no other use of their learning but to explain away the articles and homilies, which they have subscribed in the grammatical and literal sense? Is it not necessary, in order to keep up the doctrines, and thereby the real dignity of the church, that either the clergy thus degenerated, should be obliged to read the homilies as formerly, and to preach consistently therewith; or that those who do hold the doctrines of the reformation, should go about from place to place, and from county to county, nay from pole to pole, if their sphere of action extended so far, to direct poor souls that are every-where ready to perish for lack of knowledge, into the right way which leadeth unto life? That this is the case between the established clergy and these itinerant preachers, will appear presently; and how then can this author charge them with making it their principal employ, wherever they go, to instil into the people a _few favourite tenets_ of their own? Has the author followed them wherever they have preached, that he asserts this so confidently concerning them? Is it not to be wished that he had at least taken care to have been better informed? for then he would have saved himself from the guilt of a notorious slander. Is it not evident to all who hear them, that the favourite tenets which the itinerant preachers make it their principal employ to instil into people’s minds wherever they go, are the _great doctrines of the reformation_, homilies and articles of the church? such as “Man’s bringing into the world with him a corruption which renders him liable to GOD’s wrath and eternal damnation: That the condition of man after the fall of _Adam_, is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon GOD: That we are accounted righteous before GOD, only for the merit of our LORD and Saviour JESUS CHRIST by faith, and not for our own works or deservings: That they are to be accursed, who presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature.” These, my Lords, are some of the favourite tenets of these itinerant preachers. Their others are like unto them. Can these, my Lords, be properly called their own? Or ought it not to be the principal employ of every true minister, wherever he goes, to instil such tenets, and that too with the utmost diligence and zeal, into the people’s minds? Does not a great part of christianity depend on them? And are not all pretensions to a true christian life, without a belief of these tenets, vain and ineffectual? May not these itinerant preachers therefore complain unto your Lordships of this anonymous author, as _Mephibosheth_ complained to _David_ of treacherous _Ziba_? Doubtless he hath slandered them. And wherefore does he speak so contemptuously of itinerant preachers? Is it not an amiable and honourable character? And may I not take the freedom of acquainting your Lordships, that if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their duty, (especially my Lord of _London_, whose diocess is of such a vast extent) they would all of them long since have commenced itinerant preachers too?