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 and PRINCIPLES, of many orthodox, well-meaning ministers, and members of the church of England, and loyal subjects to his Majesty King George, falsely termed a Sect, and usually distinguished, OUT OF CONTEMPT, by the name of Methodists. This title, my Lords, would just answer the contents. For the principles as well as conduct of the Methodists are struck at, and greatly misrepresented in this pamphlet. And the Methodists are no sect, 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 the title-page is so bad, I fear the design and scope of 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 against them, 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 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.