ANANSWER

ANANSWERTOTheFirst Partof anAnonymous Pamphlet, entitled, “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the Name ofMethodists.”IN ALETTERTOTheRight Reverendthe BISHOP of LONDON, and the otherRight Reverendthe BISHOPS concerned in the Publication thereof.False Witnesses did rise up: they laid to my Charge Things that I knew not,Psalmsxxxv.11.ALETTERTo the Right ReverendThe Bishop ofLondon,&c.London, March 1744.My Lords,THE ApostlePeterexhorts us, “to be ready to give an answer to every one that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear.” And if this is to be our conduct towards every one, much more are we bound to behave thus to those who are overseers of the church ofGod, and consequently are invested with an authority to require an answer at our hands.A desire of complying with this apostolical injunction, induced me, my Lords, about five weeks ago, to publish an Advertisement¹, wherein I desired an open publication of several anonymous papers, entitled,Observations upon the conduct and behaviour of a certain sect, usually distinguished by thename of Methodists. Papers, which, upon enquiry, I found had been printed some considerable time, had been read in the societies ofLondonandWestminster, and handed about in a private manner to particular friends, with strict orders to part with them to no one. What could be the meaning of such a procedure, I know not. But this I know, however such a clandestine way of acting, may savour of the wisdom of the serpent, it does not bespeak that♦harmlessness of the dove, which our Saviour in an especial manner recommends to his ministers.¹Whereas some anonymous papers against the people calledMethodistsin general, and myself and friends in particular, have been for some weeks printed in a large edition, and handed about and read in the religious societies of the cities ofLondonandWestminster, and given into the hands of many private persons, with strict injunctions to lend them to no one, nor let them go out of their hands to any; and whereas, after having accidentally had the hasty perusal of them, I find many queries of great importance concerning me, and my conduct, contained therein; and as it appears that one paper has little or no connexion with another, and a copy, when applied for, was refused me, and I know not how soon I may embark forGeorgia; I am therefore obliged hereby to desire a speedy open publication of the aforesaid papers, in order that a candid, impartial answer may be made thereto by me,George Whitefield.London, January 26, 1744.♦“harmlesness” replaced with “harmlessness”Who the real author of these papers may be, I am not yet able for a certainty to find out. But I had reason to believe, that my Lord ofLondonwas concerned in composing or revising them. That I might not be mistaken, after the publication of the advertisement, I wrote his Lordship a letter¹, wherein I desired to know, whether his Lordship was the author of this paper or not, and also desired a copy. His Lordship was pleased to send word by my friend, who carried the letter, that “I should hear from him.” Hitherto his Lordship has not favoured me with an answer. Only some time ago, oneMr.Owen, a printer, inAmen-Corner, Pater-noster Row, who is printer to my Lord ofLondon, left a letter²forme, wherein he informed me, that he had orders fromSeveral of the Bishopsto print theObservations on the conduct and behaviour of the Methodists(with some few Additions) for their use; and when the impression was finished, I should have a copy. Why my Lord ofLondon, or the several other Bishops concerned, should conceal their names, or why a copy should be denied me, so long after the papers had been printed, I leave the world to judge. I cannot think such a way of proceeding can gain your Lordships any credit from the public, or any thanks from the other Bishops who have not interested themselves in this affair, and who, I believe, are moreNOBLE, than to countenance the publication of any such performance.¹My Lord,London, February 1, 1744.Simplicity becomes the followers ofJesus Christ, and therefore I think it my duty to trouble your Lordship with these few lines. I suppose your Lordship has seen the advertisement published by me, about four days ago, concerning some anonymous papers, which have been handed about in the societies for some considerable time. As I think it my duty to answer them, I should be glad to be informed whether the report be true, that your Lordship composed them, that I may the better know to whom I may direct my answer. A sight also of one of the copies, if in your Lordship’s keeping, would much oblige, my Lord,Your Lordship’s most obliged, dutiful son and servant,George Whitefield.P. S.The bearer will bring your Lordship’s answer; or if your Lordship please to favour me with a line, be pleased to direct for me, to be left withMr.J. Syms,&c.²Sir,February 3. 1744.My name isOwen. I am a printer inAmen-Corner; and I waited upon you to let you know, that I have had orders from several of the Bishops, to print for their use, such numbers of theObservations upon the conduct and behaviour of the Methodists, (with some few additions) as they have respectively bespoken. And I will not fail to wait upon you with one copy, as soon as the impression is finished. I am, Sir,Your most obedient,&c.It is a weighty thing with me, my Lords, to have insinuations made, or queries put to me, in respect to my practice and doctrine, in such a public manner, by persons that are placed at the head of the church. It is true, your Lordships have not put queries to me in your own names; but as the author has concealed his, and these papers are printed by your Lordships orders, you have thereby adopted them for your own; consequently, I am put under a necessity of directing this letter as I have done. And I can assure your Lordships, that with great deference to the dignity of your office, after earnest prayer, with I trust some degree of humility, and unfeigned simplicity of heart, I now sit down to perform my promise, to give a candid and impartial answer to the fore-mentioned papers, which were sent me last week, (collected into a pamphlet) byMr.Owen; and I suppose, by your Lordships order.I never yet was, and hope never shall be so far left to lean to my own understanding, as to fancy myself infallible. Young as I am, I know too much of the devices of Satan, and of the desperate wickedness and deceitfulness of my own heart; not to be sensible, that I am a man of like passions with others, and consequently may have sometimes mistaken nature forgrace, imagination for revelation, and the fire of my own temper, for the pure and sacred flame of holy zeal, which cometh fromGod’s altar.—If therefore, upon perusing the pamphlet, I find that I have been blameable in any respect (as in all probability I may) I will not only confess it, but return hearty thanks both to the compiler and your Lordships, though unknown.Indeed, it is but of little consequence to the merits of the cause to know who the author is. Only thus much may be said, your Lordships yourselves being judges, it is not quite fair to give stabs in the dark; and it is some satisfaction to the person attacked, to know who and what his antagonists are, that he may know the better how to deal with them. But since that cannot be granted, it may be more to the purpose, to consider the matters contained in the pamphlet, and to answer for myself, so far as I am concerned.It is entitled,Observations upon the conduct and behavior(i. e.upon the conduct and conduct)of a certain sect, usually distinguished by the name of Methodists. I think the title ought rather to run thus,—Misrepresentations of the conduct andPRINCIPLES, of many orthodox, well-meaning ministers, and members of the church ofEngland, and loyal subjects to his Majesty KingGeorge,falsely termed a Sect, and usually distinguished,OUT OF CONTEMPT, by the name ofMethodists. This title, my Lords, would just answer the contents. For theprinciplesas well asconductof the Methodists are struck at, and greatly misrepresented in this pamphlet. And the Methodists are nosect, no separatists from the established church, neither do they call people from her communion. Besides, the author ought to have added,A new edition, with several alterations, additions and corrections; for otherwise the world is made to believe, that this is the self-same composition which was handed about some months ago, and of which I had a hasty reading. Whereas there are several things omitted, some things added, and divers alterations made in this new edition; so that the title-page is not only injudicious, but false and scandalous.And if thetitle-pageis so bad, I fear thedesign and scopeof the pamphlet itself is much worse. For is it not to represent the proceedings of the Methodists as dangerous to the church and state, in order to procure an act of parliament againstthem, or oblige them to secure themselves by turning dissenters?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 KingGeorge, 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 ofprinciple, would cleave close to him in the most imminent danger, when others that adhere to him, only forpreferments, 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 KingGeorge, 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 theJewsmade insurrection with one accord againstPaul, and brought him to thejudgment-seat, saying, this fellow persuadeth men to worshipGodcontrary to the law; he said unto theJews, if it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O yeJews, 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 hisfirst 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 betterEnglishif 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 ofGod, 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 ofEngland, 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 notleave 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 KingCharlesII.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 beingfield-preachers. And what the author so peremptorily affirms, page 4. paragraph 3. (and which, by the way, is one of thefew additionsmade 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 KingCharlesII.wherein the wordfieldis mentioned, and find they are intended “to suppressseditious conventicles, for promoting further, and more proper, speedy remedies against the growing and dangerous practices ofseditious sectaries, and otherdisloyal persons, who, under pretence of tender consciences, have, or may, at their meetingscontrive 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 ofMr.Owen, in order, as may be supposed, that they should be dispersed among your Lordships’ clergy? Well might the author conceal hisname. A more notorious libel has not been published. I am apt to believe, thatMr.Owenthe 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 KingCharlesII.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 ofMedeandPenn; and, after the jury had been confined a long time, they brought them in,guilty only of speaking inGracechurch-street. And ifQuakersmet with so much lenity under the reign of KingCharles, what liberty of preaching in fields, and elsewhere, may not the loyal ministers and members of the church ofEngland, nay, protestant Dissenting teachers also, expect under the more gentle and moderate reign of his present Majesty KingGeorge, 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 theEnglishthrone! To this, I believe, all the Methodists will heartily say,Amen, andAmen.That the Methodists, in general, are members of theEstablished 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 affectto 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 ofEngland? 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 ofIsraelsaid toPharaoh,Exodusv.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 theclergyto see this rubrick put in execution? And is it not the duty of thechurch-wardens, according to the28thcanon, 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 throughEngland,Ireland,Wales, or his Majesty’s town ofBerwickuponTweed, except now and then, when they entertain a grudge against some particular Methodists? These, my Lords, would rejoice to see, that ministersand church-wardens would do their duty in this particular. For many of them have been so offended by the clergy’s promiscuously and carelesly admittingall sorts of peopleto 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 ourLord’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 theLord.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 thosePharisees, who were angry when so many people brought their sick to be healed by ourLord Jesuson the sabbath-day? For I cannot think, that the ministers complainof 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 inLondonand 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 themselvesgood 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 ourLordsay 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 othersuch complaintagainst 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 asopen defiers of government, page 4, paragraph 2, and makingopen 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 inLondonandWestminsterfor 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 anotorious libel. For wherein do the Methodist societies transgress the laws of church or state, any more than the societies inLondonandWestminster? “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 inLondonandWestminster(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 theLondonsocieties 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 theseLondonsocieties, 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 oneread a prayer, may not the otherpray extempore? Does any law ofGodor man forbid it? If the one meet in avestry, or private house, may not the other meet in aFounderyorTabernacle? 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 ofLondonandWestminster.” 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 atBow-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 ofGodin 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 ofJesus Christimputed 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 inLondonandWestminsterwere 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 toDr.Woodward’s account of the rise and progress of the religious societies in the city ofLondon,&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 presentLondonsocieties (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 ourprinciples and practices, and those of the present religious societies ofLondonandWestminster, I believe they would utterly disown them, and turn Methodists too.And why, my Lords, should the Author be so averse tofield-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 gloriousEmmanuel(after he was thrust out of the synagogues) preach from a ship, in a wilderness,&c.? Did not the Apostles, after his ascension, preach inschools,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 thecivil powerbe applied to in order to quell and suppress them? Or a pamphlet encouraged by several of theRight 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 toGodand precious souls, put their lives in their hand, and preach unto such revellers, repentance towardsGod, and faith towards ourLord 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 therabble? I suppose, the common people. If so, these are they who always heard the blessedJesusgladly. It was chiefly the poor, my Lords, theοχλος, 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 ofGod’s dear Son. Not manymighty, 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 toGod, to preach to them the power ofChrist’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 myGod, 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 theEnglishthrone. In acting thus, I humbly apprehend, I can do most service to the cause of the blessedJesus, to his present Majesty KingGeorge, 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 anEuge 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 overGod’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 tocontempt, 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 notCATECHISING,PLURALITIES,NON-RESIDENCE,&c.every day themselves? With what face can he do it? Is not this likeNero’s settingRomeon 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,Godwilling, 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.

TheFirst Partof anAnonymous Pamphlet, entitled, “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the Name ofMethodists.”

IN ALETTERTO

TheRight Reverendthe BISHOP of LONDON, and the otherRight Reverendthe BISHOPS concerned in the Publication thereof.

False Witnesses did rise up: they laid to my Charge Things that I knew not,

Psalmsxxxv.11.

ALETTERTo the Right ReverendThe Bishop ofLondon,&c.

London, March 1744.

My Lords,

THE ApostlePeterexhorts us, “to be ready to give an answer to every one that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear.” And if this is to be our conduct towards every one, much more are we bound to behave thus to those who are overseers of the church ofGod, and consequently are invested with an authority to require an answer at our hands.

A desire of complying with this apostolical injunction, induced me, my Lords, about five weeks ago, to publish an Advertisement¹, wherein I desired an open publication of several anonymous papers, entitled,Observations upon the conduct and behaviour of a certain sect, usually distinguished by thename of Methodists. Papers, which, upon enquiry, I found had been printed some considerable time, had been read in the societies ofLondonandWestminster, and handed about in a private manner to particular friends, with strict orders to part with them to no one. What could be the meaning of such a procedure, I know not. But this I know, however such a clandestine way of acting, may savour of the wisdom of the serpent, it does not bespeak that♦harmlessness of the dove, which our Saviour in an especial manner recommends to his ministers.

¹Whereas some anonymous papers against the people calledMethodistsin general, and myself and friends in particular, have been for some weeks printed in a large edition, and handed about and read in the religious societies of the cities ofLondonandWestminster, and given into the hands of many private persons, with strict injunctions to lend them to no one, nor let them go out of their hands to any; and whereas, after having accidentally had the hasty perusal of them, I find many queries of great importance concerning me, and my conduct, contained therein; and as it appears that one paper has little or no connexion with another, and a copy, when applied for, was refused me, and I know not how soon I may embark forGeorgia; I am therefore obliged hereby to desire a speedy open publication of the aforesaid papers, in order that a candid, impartial answer may be made thereto by me,George Whitefield.London, January 26, 1744.♦“harmlesness” replaced with “harmlessness”

George Whitefield.

London, January 26, 1744.

♦“harmlesness” replaced with “harmlessness”

Who the real author of these papers may be, I am not yet able for a certainty to find out. But I had reason to believe, that my Lord ofLondonwas concerned in composing or revising them. That I might not be mistaken, after the publication of the advertisement, I wrote his Lordship a letter¹, wherein I desired to know, whether his Lordship was the author of this paper or not, and also desired a copy. His Lordship was pleased to send word by my friend, who carried the letter, that “I should hear from him.” Hitherto his Lordship has not favoured me with an answer. Only some time ago, oneMr.Owen, a printer, inAmen-Corner, Pater-noster Row, who is printer to my Lord ofLondon, left a letter²forme, wherein he informed me, that he had orders fromSeveral of the Bishopsto print theObservations on the conduct and behaviour of the Methodists(with some few Additions) for their use; and when the impression was finished, I should have a copy. Why my Lord ofLondon, or the several other Bishops concerned, should conceal their names, or why a copy should be denied me, so long after the papers had been printed, I leave the world to judge. I cannot think such a way of proceeding can gain your Lordships any credit from the public, or any thanks from the other Bishops who have not interested themselves in this affair, and who, I believe, are moreNOBLE, than to countenance the publication of any such performance.

¹My Lord,London, February 1, 1744.Simplicity becomes the followers ofJesus Christ, and therefore I think it my duty to trouble your Lordship with these few lines. I suppose your Lordship has seen the advertisement published by me, about four days ago, concerning some anonymous papers, which have been handed about in the societies for some considerable time. As I think it my duty to answer them, I should be glad to be informed whether the report be true, that your Lordship composed them, that I may the better know to whom I may direct my answer. A sight also of one of the copies, if in your Lordship’s keeping, would much oblige, my Lord,Your Lordship’s most obliged, dutiful son and servant,George Whitefield.P. S.The bearer will bring your Lordship’s answer; or if your Lordship please to favour me with a line, be pleased to direct for me, to be left withMr.J. Syms,&c.²Sir,February 3. 1744.My name isOwen. I am a printer inAmen-Corner; and I waited upon you to let you know, that I have had orders from several of the Bishops, to print for their use, such numbers of theObservations upon the conduct and behaviour of the Methodists, (with some few additions) as they have respectively bespoken. And I will not fail to wait upon you with one copy, as soon as the impression is finished. I am, Sir,Your most obedient,&c.

¹My Lord,

London, February 1, 1744.

Simplicity becomes the followers ofJesus Christ, and therefore I think it my duty to trouble your Lordship with these few lines. I suppose your Lordship has seen the advertisement published by me, about four days ago, concerning some anonymous papers, which have been handed about in the societies for some considerable time. As I think it my duty to answer them, I should be glad to be informed whether the report be true, that your Lordship composed them, that I may the better know to whom I may direct my answer. A sight also of one of the copies, if in your Lordship’s keeping, would much oblige, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s most obliged, dutiful son and servant,

George Whitefield.

P. S.The bearer will bring your Lordship’s answer; or if your Lordship please to favour me with a line, be pleased to direct for me, to be left withMr.J. Syms,&c.

²Sir,February 3. 1744.My name isOwen. I am a printer inAmen-Corner; and I waited upon you to let you know, that I have had orders from several of the Bishops, to print for their use, such numbers of theObservations upon the conduct and behaviour of the Methodists, (with some few additions) as they have respectively bespoken. And I will not fail to wait upon you with one copy, as soon as the impression is finished. I am, Sir,Your most obedient,&c.

²Sir,

February 3. 1744.

My name isOwen. I am a printer inAmen-Corner; and I waited upon you to let you know, that I have had orders from several of the Bishops, to print for their use, such numbers of theObservations upon the conduct and behaviour of the Methodists, (with some few additions) as they have respectively bespoken. And I will not fail to wait upon you with one copy, as soon as the impression is finished. I am, Sir,

Your most obedient,&c.

It is a weighty thing with me, my Lords, to have insinuations made, or queries put to me, in respect to my practice and doctrine, in such a public manner, by persons that are placed at the head of the church. It is true, your Lordships have not put queries to me in your own names; but as the author has concealed his, and these papers are printed by your Lordships orders, you have thereby adopted them for your own; consequently, I am put under a necessity of directing this letter as I have done. And I can assure your Lordships, that with great deference to the dignity of your office, after earnest prayer, with I trust some degree of humility, and unfeigned simplicity of heart, I now sit down to perform my promise, to give a candid and impartial answer to the fore-mentioned papers, which were sent me last week, (collected into a pamphlet) byMr.Owen; and I suppose, by your Lordships order.

I never yet was, and hope never shall be so far left to lean to my own understanding, as to fancy myself infallible. Young as I am, I know too much of the devices of Satan, and of the desperate wickedness and deceitfulness of my own heart; not to be sensible, that I am a man of like passions with others, and consequently may have sometimes mistaken nature forgrace, imagination for revelation, and the fire of my own temper, for the pure and sacred flame of holy zeal, which cometh fromGod’s altar.—If therefore, upon perusing the pamphlet, I find that I have been blameable in any respect (as in all probability I may) I will not only confess it, but return hearty thanks both to the compiler and your Lordships, though unknown.

Indeed, it is but of little consequence to the merits of the cause to know who the author is. Only thus much may be said, your Lordships yourselves being judges, it is not quite fair to give stabs in the dark; and it is some satisfaction to the person attacked, to know who and what his antagonists are, that he may know the better how to deal with them. But since that cannot be granted, it may be more to the purpose, to consider the matters contained in the pamphlet, and to answer for myself, so far as I am concerned.

It is entitled,Observations upon the conduct and behavior(i. e.upon the conduct and conduct)of a certain sect, usually distinguished by the name of Methodists. I think the title ought rather to run thus,—Misrepresentations of the conduct andPRINCIPLES, of many orthodox, well-meaning ministers, and members of the church ofEngland, and loyal subjects to his Majesty KingGeorge,falsely termed a Sect, and usually distinguished,OUT OF CONTEMPT, by the name ofMethodists. This title, my Lords, would just answer the contents. For theprinciplesas well asconductof the Methodists are struck at, and greatly misrepresented in this pamphlet. And the Methodists are nosect, no separatists from the established church, neither do they call people from her communion. Besides, the author ought to have added,A new edition, with several alterations, additions and corrections; for otherwise the world is made to believe, that this is the self-same composition which was handed about some months ago, and of which I had a hasty reading. Whereas there are several things omitted, some things added, and divers alterations made in this new edition; so that the title-page is not only injudicious, but false and scandalous.

And if thetitle-pageis so bad, I fear thedesign and scopeof the pamphlet itself is much worse. For is it not to represent the proceedings of the Methodists as dangerous to the church and state, in order to procure an act of parliament againstthem, or oblige them to secure themselves by turning dissenters?

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 KingGeorge, 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 ofprinciple, would cleave close to him in the most imminent danger, when others that adhere to him, only forpreferments, 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 KingGeorge, 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 theJewsmade insurrection with one accord againstPaul, and brought him to thejudgment-seat, saying, this fellow persuadeth men to worshipGodcontrary to the law; he said unto theJews, if it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O yeJews, 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 hisfirst 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 betterEnglishif 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 ofGod, 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 ofEngland, 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 notleave 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 KingCharlesII.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 beingfield-preachers. And what the author so peremptorily affirms, page 4. paragraph 3. (and which, by the way, is one of thefew additionsmade 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 KingCharlesII.wherein the wordfieldis mentioned, and find they are intended “to suppressseditious conventicles, for promoting further, and more proper, speedy remedies against the growing and dangerous practices ofseditious sectaries, and otherdisloyal persons, who, under pretence of tender consciences, have, or may, at their meetingscontrive 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 ofMr.Owen, in order, as may be supposed, that they should be dispersed among your Lordships’ clergy? Well might the author conceal hisname. A more notorious libel has not been published. I am apt to believe, thatMr.Owenthe 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 KingCharlesII.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 ofMedeandPenn; and, after the jury had been confined a long time, they brought them in,guilty only of speaking inGracechurch-street. And ifQuakersmet with so much lenity under the reign of KingCharles, what liberty of preaching in fields, and elsewhere, may not the loyal ministers and members of the church ofEngland, nay, protestant Dissenting teachers also, expect under the more gentle and moderate reign of his present Majesty KingGeorge, 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 theEnglishthrone! To this, I believe, all the Methodists will heartily say,Amen, andAmen.

That the Methodists, in general, are members of theEstablished 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 affectto 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 ofEngland? 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 ofIsraelsaid toPharaoh,Exodusv.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 theclergyto see this rubrick put in execution? And is it not the duty of thechurch-wardens, according to the28thcanon, 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 throughEngland,Ireland,Wales, or his Majesty’s town ofBerwickuponTweed, except now and then, when they entertain a grudge against some particular Methodists? These, my Lords, would rejoice to see, that ministersand church-wardens would do their duty in this particular. For many of them have been so offended by the clergy’s promiscuously and carelesly admittingall sorts of peopleto 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 ourLord’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 theLord.

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 thosePharisees, who were angry when so many people brought their sick to be healed by ourLord Jesuson the sabbath-day? For I cannot think, that the ministers complainof 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 inLondonand 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 themselvesgood 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 ourLordsay 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 othersuch complaintagainst 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 asopen defiers of government, page 4, paragraph 2, and makingopen 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 inLondonandWestminsterfor 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 anotorious libel. For wherein do the Methodist societies transgress the laws of church or state, any more than the societies inLondonandWestminster? “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 inLondonandWestminster(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 theLondonsocieties 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 theseLondonsocieties, 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 oneread a prayer, may not the otherpray extempore? Does any law ofGodor man forbid it? If the one meet in avestry, or private house, may not the other meet in aFounderyorTabernacle? 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 ofLondonandWestminster.” 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 atBow-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 ofGodin 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 ofJesus Christimputed 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 inLondonandWestminsterwere 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 toDr.Woodward’s account of the rise and progress of the religious societies in the city ofLondon,&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 presentLondonsocieties (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 ourprinciples and practices, and those of the present religious societies ofLondonandWestminster, I believe they would utterly disown them, and turn Methodists too.

And why, my Lords, should the Author be so averse tofield-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 gloriousEmmanuel(after he was thrust out of the synagogues) preach from a ship, in a wilderness,&c.? Did not the Apostles, after his ascension, preach inschools,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 thecivil powerbe applied to in order to quell and suppress them? Or a pamphlet encouraged by several of theRight 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 toGodand precious souls, put their lives in their hand, and preach unto such revellers, repentance towardsGod, and faith towards ourLord 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 therabble? I suppose, the common people. If so, these are they who always heard the blessedJesusgladly. It was chiefly the poor, my Lords, theοχλος, 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 ofGod’s dear Son. Not manymighty, 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 toGod, to preach to them the power ofChrist’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 myGod, 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 theEnglishthrone. In acting thus, I humbly apprehend, I can do most service to the cause of the blessedJesus, to his present Majesty KingGeorge, 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 anEuge 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 overGod’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 tocontempt, 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 notCATECHISING,PLURALITIES,NON-RESIDENCE,&c.every day themselves? With what face can he do it? Is not this likeNero’s settingRomeon 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,Godwilling, 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.

Back to Index Next