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.