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 consequences_ 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 stile _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 stedfastly_ 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 intreaty.――――_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 communion?_――――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, shew where the church gave you such authority of controuling 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 uncontrouled._――――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 1 Journal, pages 47, 49.