The Oxford Methodists : $b Memoirs of the Rev. Messrs. Clayton, Ingham, Gambold, Hervey, and Broughton, with biographical notices of othersTyerman, L. (Luke)
History
The Oxford Methodists : $b Memoirs of the Rev. Messrs. Clayton, Ingham, Gambold, Hervey, and Broughton, with biographical notices of others
“But, further, to the _second_ charge. Supposing I had preached
up a community of goods, as this gentleman positively asserts
(which I never did), would it thence follow, that people have
a liberty to plunder; that they may take away their neighbour’s
goods by force? If the one was a necessary consequence of
the other, then the apostles and first Christians were much
to blame in what they did. If all were real Christians, yet
it would not be necessary to have a community of goods. None
were obliged to it in the apostles’ days. They entered into
it willingly. But in the present state of things, it would be
both absurd and impracticable to attempt such a thing. What
might make some people think that I maintained this doctrine,
perhaps, was this. I once preached a charity sermon at Leeds,
I think, from these words: ‘And the multitude of them that
believed were of one heart and soul; neither said any of
them that ought of the things which he possessed were his
own; but they had all things common.’ But I nowhere asserted
therein, that we were now obliged to do as they then did. I
only exhorted my hearers to imitate the good examples of the
primitive Christians, and to contribute generously to the wants
of their poor brethren, according to their ability. Now, if
this gentleman’s mistake arose from this sermon, if he thinks
it worth his while to come over to Osset, after my return into
Yorkshire,—I promise to let him see the sermon, as I preached
it (for it is not altered), that he may be fully satisfied; for
I neither _did_, nor _do_ preach up a community of goods.
“The _third_ thing which the author of the letter lays to my
charge, and which he says is matter of fact, and which he
can prove, is this: A gentleman of Leeds, who was one of my
followers, asked what difference there was between the Church
of England and my way of worship? To which, he says, I replied,
‘The Church of England is the scarlet whore, prophesied of in
the Revelation; and there will be no true Christianity as long
as that Church subsists.’ Now, supposing any gentleman should
have asked me such a question (which I do not remember), do
these words look like a pertinent answer to such a question?
I never pretended to set up a new way of worship. I still
live in the communion of the Church of England. My neighbours
can testify that I go to church constantly, and receive the
sacrament. But, further, I am sure that I never _did_, nor
_could_ say these words; for _they are contrary to my settled
judgment_. I may have said words like these, yet quite
different in their meaning.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account