Chapter VI: Preface (4)

But is not such a motion, at such a season as this, both uncharitable and unseasonable? Is not the administration engaged enough already in other affairs, without troubling themselves with the Methodists? Or who would now advise them to bring farther guilt upon the nation, by persecuting some of the present government’s most hearty friends? I say, my Lords, the present government’s most hearty friends. For though the Methodists (as the world calls them) disagree in some particulars, yet I dare venture to affirm, that to a man they all agree in this, to love and honour the king. For my own part, I profess myself a zealous friend to his present Majesty King _George_, and the present administration. ♦Wherever I go, I think it my duty to pray for, and to preach up obedience to him, and all that are set in authority under him, in the most explicit manner. And I believe, should it ever come to the trial, the poor despised Methodists, who love his Majesty out of _principle_, would cleave close to him in the most imminent danger, when others that adhere to him, only for _preferments_, perhaps might not appear altogether so hearty. My Lords, I have now been a preacher above seven years, and for these six years past, have been called to act in a very public way. Your Lordships must have heard of the very great numbers that have attended me: sometimes several of the nobility, and now and then, even some of the clergy have been present. Did they ever hear me speak a disloyal word? Are there not thousands can testify, how fervently and frequently I pray for his Majesty King _George_, his royal offspring, and the present government? Yes, my Lords, they can. And I trust, through the divine assistance, I should be enabled to do so, though surrounded with popish enemies, and in danger of dying for it as soon as my prayer was ended. This, my Lords, as far as I am acquainted with them, is the present temper of my friends, as well as myself. And may I not then appeal to your Lordships, whether it be not the interest of the administration to encourage such persons, or at least to let them alone? _Gallio_, on a like occasion, thought it his wisdom to act thus. “For when the _Jews_ made insurrection with one accord against _Paul_, and brought him to the judgment-seat, saying, this fellow persuadeth men to worship GOD contrary to the law; he said unto the _Jews_, if it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye _Jews_, reason would that I should bear with you. But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it, for I will be no judge of such matters.” Nay, he was so far from approving of their motion, that he drove them from the judgment-seat.

♦ “Whereever” replaced with “Wherever”

My Lords, I know of no law of the state that we have broken, and therefore we have not incurred the displeasure of the civil power. If your Lordships apprehend that we are liable to ecclesiastical censures, we are ready to make a proper defence whenever called to it by our ecclesiastical superiors. As for myself, your Lordships very well know that I am a Batchelor of Arts, have taken the oaths, subscribed to the articles, and have been twice regularly ordained. In this character I have acted both at home and abroad, and know of no law of our government which prohibits my preaching in any field, barn, street, or out-house whatsoever.

It is true, one or two of my friends, who preach as I do, were bred dissenters, and had been licensed, and preached in licensed places before my acquaintance with them; and one or two of the houses where the Methodists meet, have, without my knowledge, been licensed since; and therefore the author of the pamphlet is quite mistaken in his _first paragraph_ (as well as the title page and design of his pamphlet) wherein he declares, that “it does not appear that any of the preachers among the Methodists have qualified themselves and the places (it would have been better _English_ if he had said, qualified themselves, and licensed the places) of their assembling, according to the act of toleration; which act warrants separate assemblies for the worship of GOD, that before were unlawful.” I wish the author had taken a little more care to inform himself before he published the pamphlet. He would not then have been guilty of so many egregious mistakes, or without cause have condemned the innocent, as he hath done. However, in the general, he is right,――for, as yet, we see no sufficient reason to leave the church of _England_, and turn dissenters; neither will we do it till we are thrust out. When a ship is leaky, prudent sailors, that value the cargo, will not leave it to sink, but rather continue in it so long as they can, to help pump out the water. I leave the author, my Lords, to make the application.

But whether the Methodists are church-men or dissenters, the acts of King _Charles_ II. referred to, page 3. paragraph 1. and page 4, paragraph 2. make nothing against them, neither do they prove the Methodists to be violaters of the statute law, by their being _field-preachers_. And what the author so peremptorily affirms, page 4. paragraph 3. (and which, by the way, is one of the _few additions_ made in this, which was not in the last edition) is directly false. For he says, that “it has not been known, that a Dissenting teacher of any denomination whatever, has thought himself warranted under the act of toleration, to preach in fields or streets.” It may not, indeed, be known to the author; but I know, my Lords, two of the most eminent among the Dissenting ministers, who have thought themselves warranted, if not by the act of toleration, yet by the laws of the land, to preach out of doors; and accordingly, when the house would not contain the people, they have preached in a field or orchard, and near the common high-way. My Lords, I have been perusing all the acts of King _Charles_ II. wherein the word _field_ is mentioned, and find they are intended “to suppress _seditious conventicles_, for promoting further, and more proper, speedy remedies against the growing and dangerous practices of _seditious sectaries_, and other _disloyal persons_, who, under pretence of tender consciences, have, or may, at their meetings _contrive insurrections_ (as late experience hath shewn)”. These, my Lords, are the preambles of the acts. These are the only field-meetings I can find that are prohibited. And how, my Lords, can such acts be applied to the Methodists? Does not such an application imply a charge against the Methodists, as though they were seditious sectaries, disloyal persons, who, under pretence of tender ♦consciences, have, or may contrive insurrections? Has any late experience shewn this? No, my Lords, and I hope no future experience ever will. How then can your Lordships, with a safe conscience, encourage such a pamphlet, or bespeak any number of Mr. _Owen_, in order, as may be supposed, that they should be dispersed among your Lordships’ clergy? Well might the author conceal his name. A more notorious libel has not been published. I am apt to believe, that Mr. _Owen_ the printer is of my mind also; for he has taken care in the title-page, not to let the world know where, or by whom, this pamphlet was printed. It comes into public like a child dropt, that no body cares to own. And, indeed, who can be blamed for disowning such a libel? For how, my Lords, does it appear by these acts, what the author so confidently asserts, page 4, paragraph 2, “that this new sect of Methodists have broken through all these provisions and restraints, neither regarding the penalties of the laws, which stand in full force against them, nor embracing the protection which the act of toleration might give them, in case they complied with the conditions of it?” How can he immediately add, “and if this be not an open defiance to government, it is hard to say what is?” May I not more justly say, if this be not an open defamation, and open defiance of all rules of charity, it is hard to say what is? Might he not as well tax the Methodists with high treason? Father, forgive him! LORD JESUS, lay not this sin to his charge!

♦ “consciencies” replaced with “consciences”

Though the reign, my Lords, of King _Charles_ II. wherein the acts before referred to were made, was not the most mild and moderate in religious matters, yet your Lordships very well know the famous trial of _Mede_ and _Penn_; and, after the jury had been confined a long time, they brought them in, _guilty only of speaking in_ Gracechurch-street. And if _Quakers_ met with so much lenity under the reign of King _Charles_, what liberty of preaching in fields, and elsewhere, may not the loyal ministers and members of the church of _England_, nay, protestant Dissenting teachers also, expect under the more gentle and moderate reign of his present Majesty King _George_, who, as I have been informed, has declared, “there shall be no persecution in his days.” May the crown long flourish on his royal head, and a popish Pretender never be permitted to sit upon the _English_ throne! To this, I believe, all the Methodists will heartily say, _Amen_, and _Amen_.

That the Methodists, in general, are members of the _Established Church_, the author of the pamphlet himself confesses. For, page 4, paragraph 4. after he has, without proof, charged them with making open inroads upon the national constitution; he adds, that “these teachers and their followers affect to be thought members of the national church.” And his following words prove that they not only affect it, but are members of the Established Church in reality: for, says he, “and do accordingly join in communion with it.” And it appears, paragraph 6. that some of the Methodists communicate every Lord’s-day. What better proof can they give of their being members of the Church of _England_? It would be well if all her members gave a like proof. But then, says our author, page 4, paragraph 4, they do it in a manner that is “very irregular, and contrary to the directions laid down in the rubrick before the communion, which is established by the act of uniformity.” (Here is another correction in this new edition.) In the copy that I read, it was “contrary to the directions laid down in our great rule, the act of uniformity.” I am glad the author found out his mistake, in putting the act of uniformity, for the rubrick. I hope the next edition will come out more correct still. This rubrick, says he, directs as follows: page 4, paragraph 4: “So many as intend to be partakers of the holy communion, shall signify their names to the curate, at least, some time the day before.” And, for not doing this, the new sect of Methodists, paragraph 5. page 6. is charged not only with breaking through, but “notoriously despising these wholsome rules.” But how unjust is such a charge? When I read it, it put me in mind of what the poor persecuted officers of the children of _Israel_ said to _Pharaoh_, _Exodus_ v. 15, 16. “Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants? There is no straw given unto thy servants. They say unto us, Make brick, and behold thy servants are beaten, but the fault is in thy own people.” For, my Lords, is it not the business of the _clergy_ to see this rubrick put in execution? And is it not the duty of the _church-wardens_, according to the 28th canon, quoted by our author, page 5, paragraph 4, “to mark whether any strangers come often, and commonly from other parishes to their churches, and to shew the ministers of them.” But, my Lords, where is this rubrick or canon observed, or insisted on by the ministers or church-wardens through _England_, _Ireland_, _Wales_, or his Majesty’s town of _Berwick_ upon _Tweed_, except now and then, when they entertain a grudge against some particular Methodists? These, my Lords, would rejoice to see, that ministers and church-wardens would do their duty in this particular. For many of them have been so offended by the clergy’s promiscuously and carelesly admitting _all sorts of people_ to the communion, that if it had not been for me, they would have left the church only upon this account. We would therefore humbly recommend it to your Lordships, that you, and the rest of the Right Reverend the Bishops, would insist upon curates and church-wardens putting this, and all other such wholesome laws and rubricks into execution. That which is holy would not then be given unto dogs, nor so many open and notorious evil-livers take the sacred symbols of our LORD’s most blessed body and blood into their unhallowed hands and mouths. The Methodists wish your Lordships prosperity in this much wished-for, though long neglected part of reformation, in the name of the LORD.

At the same time, my Lords, I would not say any thing that might any way encourage disorders; neither would I persuade the Methodists to leave their own parish-churches when the sacrament is administered there. On the contrary, I would have them take the author’s advice, page 6, paragraph 6, “If particular persons are disposed to receive weekly, when the sacrament is not administered at their own parish-church, to repair privately to the church nearest their own, where the sacrament is administered every Lord’s-day, having first signified their names to the minister, as the rubrick directs.” This, I believe, they will readily comply with. For I cannot think with this author (in the same paragraph), that the reason of their coming in such numbers is, that they may have the “vain pleasure of appearing together in a body, and as a distinct sect.” We would rather, according to the rules of that charity which hopeth all things for the best, believe that they come together in such companies to animate and encourage one another. Dr. _Horneck_, I remember, in his account of the primitive christians, remarks, that “where you saw one christian, you might generally see more.” And is it not delightful, my Lords, to behold a communion table crouded? Do not such as complain of it, discover something of the spirit of those _Pharisees_, who were angry when so many people brought their sick to be healed by our LORD JESUS on the sabbath-day? For I cannot think, that the ministers complain of this, only on account of their being hereby “put under the difficulty (paragraph 5, page 6.) either of rejecting great numbers as unknown to them, or administering the sacrament to great numbers, of whom they have no knowledge,” because it is too notorious that hundreds receive the blessed sacrament, both in _London_ and other places, where there are no Methodists, whom the minister knows little or nothing at all about, and takes no pains to enquire after. O that the Author’s mentioning this, may be a means of stirring up the clergy to approve themselves _good shepherds_, by seeking, as much as in them lies, to know the state of all that come to the holy communion! Glad am I, my Lords, to find that the author, in this edition, hath left out the complaint which was in the copy I first read, of such crowds coming to receive the sacrament, “because the ministers who are afternoon-lecturers, were thereby put under the hardship of not having time for necessary rest and refreshment, between morning and evening duties. For might not our LORD say unto them, “You slothful servants, cannot you labour for me one day in a week? Cannot you lose one meal to feed my lambs, without complaining of it as an hardship?” Surely none can make such a complaint, but such “whose god is their belly, whose glory is their shame, who mind earthly things.” But I need not mention this, because the Author himself seems ashamed of it.

And indeed this, as well as the other objections against the Methodists, are so trivial, and the acts referred to as discountenancing their field-preaching, so impertinent, that the Author, without the least degree of a prophetic spirit, might easily foresee, paragraph 8, page 8, “that this, and every other _such complaint_ against the Methodists, would be censured not only by them, (but by every impartial person) as a discouragement to piety and devotion, and particularly a religious observation of the Lord’s-day.” Nay, my Lords, he might have foreseen that it would be censured as a wicked, false, and ill-designing libel. For is it not wicked, to represent innocent and loyal persons as _open defiers of government_, page 4, paragraph 2, and making _open inroads upon the national constitution_, (paragraph 4.) without bringing any real proofs of either?

I am not, my Lords, of the Author’s opinion, paragraph 8, page 8, “that this slander (of his being a libeller) is effectually confuted, by looking back to the state of the several religious societies in _London_ and _Westminster_ for many years past.” This will only serve to increase every unprejudiced person’s censure of this performance, and more effectually, without the least degree of slander, prove it a _notorious libel_. For wherein do the Methodist societies transgress the laws of church or state, any more than the societies in _London_ and _Westminster_? “Do the particular members of each society (paragraph 8. page 8.) attend the public duties of the day, together with their neighbours, as the laws of church and state direct?” Do not the members of the Methodist societies the same? “Have the members of the religious societies in _London_ and _Westminster_ (as the Author mentions in the same paragraph) also (by private agreements among themselves) their evening meetings, to employ the remainder of the day in serious conversation, and in reading good books, &c.” Have not the members of the Methodist societies liberty to enter into a like private agreement among themselves? “Have the members of the _London_ societies behaved with modesty and decency, without any violation of public order and regularity?” So have ours, my Lords, as all must confess who have been present when our societies met.

And therefore, my Lords, if these _London_ societies, as our Author says, paragraph 8, page 8. have received no discouragements, but, on the contrary, have been countenanced and encouraged by the bishops and clergy; why do not the Methodists meet with the same treatment? Are they not as loyal subjects? If the one _read a prayer_, may not the other _pray extempore_? Does any law of GOD or man forbid it? If the one meet in a _vestry_, or private house, may not the other meet in a _Foundery_ or _Tabernacle_? Are not your Lordships, therefore, reduced to this dilemma, either to encourage both or neither? or at least give the world better reasons than the Author of this pamphlet has, why your Lordships should countenance and encourage the one, and so strenuously discountenance and discourage the other.

For my own part, my Lords, I know of no reason why they are discountenanced, except this, “The Methodist societies (as they are called) are more for the power of godliness than those other societies of _London_ and _Westminster_.” I assure your Lordships, I have not been altogether a stranger to these societies. I used to meet with some of them frequently, and have more than once preached their quarterly sermon at _Bow-church_. Some, who before had only the form of godliness, our Saviour was since pleased to call effectually by his grace. But when they began to talk feelingly and experimentally of the new-birth, free justification, and the indwelling of the Spirit of GOD in believers hearts, they were soon looked upon as righteous over-much, and accordingly were cast out by their self-righteous brethren. These were the late extravagances, my Lords, into which the Author (just at the conclusion of his first part) says, that some have been unhappily misled; and this, my Lords, was the first rise of the societies which the Methodists now frequent. O that he and all who oppose them, had been misled into the like extravagances! I mean a real experience of the new-birth, and the righteousness of JESUS CHRIST imputed and applied to their souls by faith, through the operation of the eternal Spirit! For without this they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. These things, my Lords, the first members of the religious societies in _London_ and _Westminster_ were no strangers to. Nay, their being misled into what the Author calls the Methodists late extravagancies, was the rise of their societies, as well as ours; and they met for the very same ends, and I believe in the very same spirit as the Methodists now do. For a proof of this, I would refer the Author to Dr. _Woodward_’s account of the rise and progress of the religious societies in the city of _London_, &c. My Lords, I have been reading over this second chapter, and in reading it, could scarce refrain weeping, when I considered how blind the author of this pamphlet must be, not to discern, that the first religious societies answered, as to their spirit, experience, and ends of meeting, to the Methodist societies, as face answers to face in the water. Let him not, therefore, mention the predecessors of the present _London_ societies (the last words of the first part) as though that would strengthen his cause. Indeed, my Lords, it weakens it much. For, was it possible for these predecessors to rise from the dead, and examine our principles and practices, and those of the present religious societies of _London_ and _Westminster_, I believe they would utterly disown them, and turn Methodists too.

And why, my Lords, should the Author be so averse to _field-preaching_? Has not our Saviour given a sanction to this way of preaching? Was not the best sermon that was ever preached, delivered on a mount? Did not our glorious _Emmanuel_ (after he was thrust out of the synagogues) preach from a ship, in a wilderness, &c.? Did not the Apostles, after his ascension, preach in _schools_, _public markets_, and such like places of resort and concourse? And can we copy after better examples? If it be said, “that the world was then heathen,” I answer, and am persuaded your Lordships will agree with me in this, that there are thousands and ten thousands in his Majesty’s dominions, as ignorant of true and undefiled religion, as ever the heathens were? And are not persons who dare venture out, and shew such poor souls the way to heaven, real friends both to church and state? And why then, my Lords, should the _civil power_ be applied to in order to quell and suppress them? Or a pamphlet encouraged by several of the _Right Reverend the Bishops_, which is manifestly calculated for that purpose? I would humbly ask your Lordships, whether it would not be more becoming your Lordships characters, to put your clergy on preaching against revelling, cock-fighting, and such like, than to move the government against those, who out of love to GOD and precious souls, put their lives in their hand, and preach unto such revellers, repentance towards GOD, and faith towards our LORD JESUS? What if the Methodists, “by public advertisements do invite the rabble?” (as our Author is pleased to write, page 4, paragraph 2.) Is not the same done by other clergy, and even by your Lordships, when you preach charity sermons? But, my Lords, what does the Author mean by the _rabble_? I suppose, the common people. If so, these are they who always heard the blessed JESUS gladly. It was chiefly the poor, my Lords, the οχλος, the turba, the mob, the multitude, these people, who, the scribes and pharisees said, knew not the law, and were accursed; these were they that were evangelized, had the gospel preached unto them, and received the Spirit of GOD’s dear Son. Not many mighty, not many noble are called, says the Apostle. _Indocti rapiunt cœlum, dum nos cum doctrina descendimus in Gehennam_, says one of the fathers. And therefore, my Lords, supposing we do advertise the rabble, and none but such make up our auditories, (which is quite false) if this be the Methodists shame, they may glory in it. for these rabble, my Lords, have precious and immortal souls, for which the dear Redeemer shed his precious blood, as well as the great and rich. These, my Lords, are the publicans and harlots that enter into the kingdom of heaven, whilst self-righteous formal professors reject it. To shew such poor sinners the way to GOD, to preach to them the power of CHRIST’s resurrection, and to pluck them as firebrands out of the burning, the Methodist preachers go out into the highways and hedges. If this is to be vile, by the help of my GOD, I shall be more vile; neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I may finish my course with joy, and be made instrumental in turning any of this rabble to righteousness. And more especially do I think it my duty to invite, and preach to this rabble in all places, where providence shall send me, at this season; that I may warn them against the dreadful effects of popish principles, and exhort them to exert their utmost endeavours to keep out a popish Pretender from ever sitting upon the _English_ throne. In acting thus, I humbly apprehend, I can do most service to the cause of the blessed JESUS, to his present Majesty King _George_, to my fellow-subjects, and the government under which I live. And however such kind of preachers may be every where spoken against now, yet I doubt not but at the great decisive day, they will be received with an _Euge bene_, and shine as stars in the firmament for ever and ever: whilst those, who have only “divined for hire, have fed themselves, and not the flock, and lorded it over GOD’s heritage,” perhaps, may pay dear for their preferment, and rise to everlasting contempt. Pardon me, my Lords, for expressing myself here with some degree of warmth. I must own it gives me concern, to see some of the clergy strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, and attempt to pull the mote out of our eyes, before they have pulled the beam out of their own. Is it not ridiculous, my Lords, even in the eyes of ♦worldly men, and does it not render the Author of this pamphlet, justly liable to contempt, to charge the Methodists with breaking canons and rubricks, which is really not their faults; when at the same time he knows, that the generality of the clergy so notoriously break both canons and rubricks, and that too in the most important articles, such as not CATECHISING, PLURALITIES, NON-RESIDENCE, &c. every day themselves? With what face can he do it? Is not this like _Nero_’s setting _Rome_ on fire, and then charging it upon the christians? May not “physician heal thyself,” be immediately retorted on him?

♦ “wordly” replaced with “worldly”

But I have done. I would not bring a railing accusation against any. Neither would I, my Lords, when giving a reason of the hope that is in me, do it any other way than with meekness and fear. I would therefore now proceed to answer the other parts of the pamphlet; but I shall reserve that for another letter, which, GOD willing, shall be published in a short time. In the mean while, I humbly recommend this to the divine blessing, and to your Lordships considerations, and beg leave to subscribe myself, my Lords,

Your Lordships most obedient son and servant,

GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

AN
ANSWER
TO

The SECOND PART of an ANONYMOUS PAMPHLET, entitled, “Observations
upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect, usually
distinguished by the Name of METHODISTS:”

IN A
SECOND LETTER
TO

The RIGHT REVEREND the BISHOP of LONDON, and the other the Right
Reverend the BISHOPS concerned in the Publication thereof.

_My heart’s desire and prayer to GOD for |Israel| is, that
they might be saved. For I bear them record, that they have a
zeal for GOD, but not according to knowledge. For they being
ignorant of GOD’s righteousness, and going about to establish
their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto
the righteousness of GOD._
Romans x. 1, 2, 3.

A
SECOND LETTER
TO THE
Right Rev. the Bishop of LONDON, &c.

_On board the ♦Wilmington, Captain Darling, bound from
Plymouth to Piscataqua in New-England, August 25, 1744._

_My Lords_,

I TROUBLED your Lordships with a letter some time ago. I now proceed, according to my promise, to answer the remainder of the anonymous pamphlet entitled, _Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the Name of Methodists_. The author opens the second part with this preface: “Besides the many _Irregularities_ which are justly charged upon these itinerant preachers as violations of the laws of church and state; it may be proper to enquire, whether the _doctrines_ they teach, or those lengths they run, beyond what is practised among our religious societies, or in any other christian church, be a service or disservice to ♠religion? to which purpose, the following Queries are submitted to consideration.” It is here taken for granted, that the Methodists (termed by our author, either out of contempt, or by way of periphrasis, _these itinerant preachers_) are justly charged with many _Irregularities_, which amount to violations of the laws of church and state. But how has the author proved, what he here takes for granted? I humbly apprehend not at all. For has it not appeared in my answer to the first part of his observations, that neither the act of toleration, nor that of _Charles_ IId, any way affects the Methodists, as being loyal subjects to his majesty King _George_, ♣and members of the Church of _England_? How then have they been justly charged with violations of the laws of the state? And has it not been equally made to appear, that the irregularity the author says the Methodists have been guilty of, in coming to other parish churches to receive the sacrament, is owing to the negligence of your Lordship’s clergy and church-wardens? How then have they been justly charged with violations of the laws of the church? But may we not suppose by his speaking so contemptuously of these itinerant preachers, that itinerant preaching itself, is one of the many irregularities and violations of the laws of the church at least, if not of the state, which according to this author are justly charged upon these itinerant preachers? His eighth query, page 11th (which for method sake I would here beg leave to make some remarks upon) bespeaks as much. For he herein submits it to the consideration of the ♥public, “Whether, in a christian nation, where the instruction and edification of the people is provided for, by placing ministers in _certain districts_, to whom the care of the souls within those districts is regularly committed; it can be for the service of religion, that itinerant preachers run up and down from place to place, and from county to county, drawing after them confused multitudes of people? an evil which our church has wisely provided against, says our author, in the ordination of a priest, by expresly limiting the exercise of powers conferred upon him, of preaching the word of GOD, and administring the holy sacraments, to _the congregation_ where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto.” Here indeed is a heinous irregularity charged upon these itinerant preachers, even a violation of the commission given them when they were ordained priests; but with what justice, I would refer to your Lordships consideration. For if the commission given us, when ordained priests, absolutely prohibits us to preach any where but to the congregation where we shall be lawfully appointed ✤thereunto, will it not prove too much? and has not the author, in endeavouring to reproach us, unwarily reproached your Lordships also? for are not your Lordships then equally irregular, equally violators of the laws of the church, whenever you preach (though it be never so seldom) out of your Lordships respective diocesses? And does not this commission, thus strictly taken, absolutely forbid any presbyters whatsoever preaching any where besides in their own particular congregations? and if so, are not all ministers that exchange pulpits equally irregular, at least as really violators of their ordination commission, as these itinerant preachers?

♦ “Willmington” replaced with “Wilmington”

♠ “religigion” replaced with “religion”

♣ removed duplicate “and”

♥ “publick” replaced with “public”

✤ “therunto” replaced with “thereunto”

Our author in the following paragraph under the forementioned query tells us, “That the bishops indeed and also our two universities have power to grant _licenses to preach_, of a larger extent, to such clergymen as they judge proper; who, in virtue thereof may, if they chuse, travel from place to place as itinerants. But then the church has provided in that case (_Can._ 50), that neither the minister, church-wardens, nor any other officers of the church shall suffer any man to preach within the churches and chapels, but such as by showing their licence to preach, shall appear unto them to be sufficiently authorized thereunto.” What these licences for itinerant preaching are to which the author here refers, is not certain. Does he not seem to mean the common licences which your Lordships give the clergy, when they take upon them holy orders? Are not these the licences which the church-wardens examine? And what is the end of these licences? Was it ever heard before that they were to qualify persons to be itinerant preachers? Is not the plain end of them, to satisfy the church-wardens that the persons who offer their service have had a regular ordination, and are sufficiently authorised to preach? And does not the author know that these licences now are little regarded? Do not our letters of orders answer the same end to all intents and purpose? Were they not judged sufficient at our first setting out into the ministry? And after all, what is it that the ministers and church-wardens can do to persons that have not these licences? Why they are not to suffer them to preach _within_ their churches and chapels? but have they any power, my Lords, to hinder them from preaching _without_ their churches or chapels? No, blessed be GOD, their power is limited within: hitherto can they go, and no further. And therefore supposing these itinerant preachers, though they have no licenses, do not preach within any churches or chapels, unless with the ministers or church-wardens consent, how are they justly charged with violating a law of the church, though they should preach without doors to as great multitudes as shall be inclined to hear them?

He proceeds in the 3d paragraph under this 8th query to write thus: “The practice of licensing itinerant preachers was occasioned by the low talents of many incumbents in the more early days of the reformation, whose abilities carried them no farther than to the reading of homilies; a defect which has long been remedied by a liberal education of sufficient numbers of persons for the ministry, who regularly perform the office of preaching, as well as other duties, in the parishes committed to their care. And if the forementioned defect did still continue, as GOD be thanked it does not, it would be ill supplied by our modern itinerants, who make it their principal employ, wherever they go, to instil into the people a few favourite tenets of their own; and this, with such diligence and zeal as if the whole of christianity depended upon them, and all efforts towards the true christian life, without a belief of those tenets, were vain and ineffectual.”

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?

But to return to an examination of the other part of the author’s preface. After he has taken it for granted, that many irregularities are justly charged upon these itinerant preachers, as “Violations of the laws of church and state,” he adds, “It may be proper to enquire, whether the doctrines they teach, and those lengths they run beyond what is practised among our religious societies, or in any other christian church, be a service or disservice to religion.” The religious societies or any other christian church! What, does our author make the religious societies a church? This is going further than the Methodists, whom he is pleased to stile only a sect. But if the religious societies, my Lords, be a church, may it not be proper to enquire how their doctrines or practices came to be set up as a rule and standard for others to go by, so that persons doing service or disservice to religion must be judged of according as they deviate from or adhere to the religious societies either in doctrine or practice? Or supposing the religious societies were to be a standard for others to go by, was it not incumbent on the author to give the public a short summary and account of their doctrines and practices? For otherwise how can the world possibly judge whether the Methodists do deviate from them; or if so, whether they do thereby service or disservice to religion? Indeed, this author has told us in his first part, how the religious societies behave on _Sundays_; but he has no where acquainted us with the principles they hold, or how they behave on other days. And till he does, I will venture to affirm, that unless these itinerants teach other doctrines than the present religious societies generally hold, and run greater lengths in christianity than the generality of them, it is to be feared, now run, they will be in great danger of never arriving at “the mark for the prize of their high-calling in CHRIST JESUS their LORD.”

I have been the more particular, my Lord, in the examination of the preface, because the author, by annexing these words, “to which purpose the following queries are submitted to consideration,” seems to lay it down as the ground-work and foundation of all the subsequent queries. And if the foundation be so weak and sandy, how slight and superficial must be the superstructure?

I suppose your Lordships will readily grant, that it is the bounden duty of every regular and fair writer (especially when he is charging others with irregularities as violations of the laws of church and state) to take care that he does not violate the laws of christian charity. Or if he puts queries to the public concerning any persons, ought he not to take heed that those queries are founded upon truth, and that the charges therein exhibited are really matter of fact? But our author has notoriously neglected this fundamental rule, and thereby not only cast a lasting blot and odium upon his own character, if his name was known, but also hath done real hurt to the cause he would defend. The query already examined concerning _itinerant preaching_, wherein he has charged the Methodists with instilling into people a few favourite tenets of their own, sufficiently demonstrates this. But this is not all; several of the other queries now coming under consideration are by no means founded on truth, and contain charges against these itinerants, whereby they are as much wronged and unjustly vilified as ever _Stephen_ was, when the _Jews_ suborned men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against _Moses_ and against GOD, this holy place and the law.”

To prove this, we need only examine the two queries which immediately follow the preface.

_Query 1st._ “Whether notions in religion may not be heightened to such extremes, as to lead some into a disregard of religion itself through despair of attaining such _exalted heights_? and whether others, who have imbibed those notions, may not be led by them into a disregard and disesteem of the common duties and offices of life, to such a degree at least as is inconsistent with that attention to them, and that diligence in them, which providence has made necessary to the well-being of private families and public societies, and which christianity does not only require in all stations and in all conditions, but declares at the same time (_Colossians_ iii. 22. _Ephesians_ ♦v. 6.) that the performance even of the lowest offices in life, as unto GOD (whose providence has placed people in their several stations) is truly serving CHRIST, and will not fail of its reward in the next world.”

♦ “5” replaced with “v” for consistency

_Query 2._ “Whether the enemy of mankind may not find his account in their carrying christianity, which was designed for a rule to all stations and all conditions, to _such heights_ as make it fairly practicable by a very few in comparison, or rather by none?”

His 5th and 6th queries, page the 10th, are like unto them. They run thus, “Whether those exalted strains in religion, and an imagination of being already in a _state of perfection_, are not apt to lead men to spiritual pride, and to a contempt of their fellow-christians; while they consider them as only going on in what they account the low and imperfect way,” (_i. e._ as growing in grace and goodness only by degrees)? And again, “whether the same exalted strains and notions do not tend to weaken the natural and civil relations among men, by leading the inferiors, into whose heads those notions are infused, to a disesteem of their superiors; while they consider them as in a much _lower dispensation_ than themselves; though those superiors are otherwise sober and good men, and regular attendants on the ordinances of religion?”

Here again it is supposed, that these itinerant preachers either imagine themselves to be in a state of perfection, or at least teach others to imagine that they are; and that the consequence of this is a weakning the natural and civil relations among men, by leading them to a disesteem of their fellow-christians, and superiors, who are supposed to be in a lower dispensation than themselves.

Heavy charges, my Lords, these are indeed! But what evidence does our author produce to prove them? Why really none at all. For here is no quotation at the bottom of either of these queries from any of their writings; so that we cannot tell whether they are levelled against these itinerant preachers in general, or any one of them in particular. And therefore the Prebendary of _St. Paul_’s, who has been pleased to reply to my first letter, in vindication of this author, has done wrong in affirming, “That under each query there is some quotation either from my journals or other writings, whereon it is founded.” But there is no such thing under these four, wherein such heavy charges are included. And therefore may I not argue, as the author does upon another occasion in his first part, page 8th, that ’till some proof does appear, the presumption must be that he has none?

In the mean while, I dare challenge this author, and the whole world, to produce any passage out of my writings, wherein I have taught any other christianity, than what, through the aids of the Blessed Spirit, is practicable by all persons in all conditions; or that I ever preached otherwise than “That the performance even of the lowest offices of life as unto GOD, whose providence has placed people in their several stations, is truly a serving of CHRIST, and will not fail of its reward (though not of debt, yet of grace) in the next world.” Neither did I ever imagine that I had attained, or was already perfect, or taught persons to imagine that they were so: no, I expect to carry a body of sin and death about with me as long as I live, and confess from my inmost soul, that I am the chief of sinners, and less than the least of all saints: I am so far from thinking that an imagination that we are already in a state of perfection, is only apt to lead men into spiritual pride, that I condemn it as the very quintessence and highest degree of it. And the more we are conformed to the divine image, the more exact I believe we shall be in keeping up our natural and civil relations among men, in giving all honour to whom honour is due, and in lowliness of mind esteeming each other better than ourselves. And if so, my Lords, may not the author, for thus charging these itinerants in general without distinction, be justly stiled a _libeller_? And how will he undertake to prove, that any one of these itinerant preachers in particular, carries christianity to any greater heighth than he himself does, query 13th, page 16, where in speaking of the Holy Spirit, he has these words, “Whose peculiar office it is, to season the heart with humility, and to root out of it the seeds (what is that but the very inbeing?) of pride and vain-glory.”

Is he not very irregular in writing thus at random; nay, does he not hereby himself openly violate the laws both of church and state?

It is true, our author would appear an advocate for both; but does not his _third query_, page 9th, plainly prove him a real friend to neither; especially the latter? He there asks, “whether in particular, the carrying the doctrine of justification by faith alone to such a heighth, as not to allow, that a careful sincere observance of moral duties is so much as a condition of our acceptance with GOD, and of our being justified in his sight; whether this I say, does not naturally lead people to a disregard of those duties, and a low esteem of them; or rather to think them no part of the christian religion?” It is plain from hence, that one of these extremes to which these itinerants exalt christianity, and whereby it’s queried, whether they do service or disservice to religion, “is their carrying the doctrine of justification by faith alone to such a height, as not to allow that a careful and sincere observance of moral duties is so much as a condition of our acceptance with GOD, and of our being justified in his sight.” Our author it seems is for another way of salvation, _query 5th_, page 10th, _viz._, “for men’s gradually working out their own salvation, by their own honest endeavours, and through the ordinary assistances of GOD’s grace; with a humble reliance upon the merits of CHRIST for the pardon of their sins and the acceptance of their sincere, though imperfect services.” This is our common divinity. This is what my Lord of _London_ in his last pastoral letter against luke-warmness and enthusiasm, exhorted his clergy to preach. But how contrary is all this to the articles and homilies of our church? For what says the _11th article_? “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. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholsome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification.”