On board the [♦]Wilmington, Captain Darling, bound from Plymouth to Piscataqua in New-England, August 25, 1744.
My Lords,
I TROUBLED your Lordships with a letter some time ago. I now proceed, according to my promise, to answer the remainder of the anonymous pamphlet entitled, Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the Name of Methodists. The author opens the second part with this preface: “Besides the many Irregularities which are justly charged upon these itinerant preachers as violations of the laws of church and state; it may be proper to enquire, whether the doctrines they teach, or those lengths they run, beyond what is practised among our religious societies, or in any other christian church, be a service or disservice to [♠]religion? to which purpose, the following Queries are submitted to consideration.” It is here taken for granted, that the Methodists (termed by our author, either out of contempt, or by way of periphrasis, these itinerant preachers) are justly charged with many Irregularities, which amount to violations of the laws of church and state. But how has the author proved, what he here takes for granted? I humbly apprehend not at all. For has it not appeared in my answer to the first part of his observations, that neither the act of toleration, nor that of Charles IId, any way affects the Methodists, as being loyal subjects to his majesty King George, [♣]and members of the Church of England? How then have they been justly charged with violations of the laws of the state? And has it not been equally made to appear, that the irregularity the author says the Methodists have been guilty of, in coming to other parish churches to receive the sacrament, is owing to the negligence of your Lordship’s clergy and church-wardens? How then have they been justly charged with violations of the laws of the church? But may we not suppose by his speaking so contemptuously of these itinerant preachers, that itinerant preaching itself, is one of the many irregularities and violations of the laws of the church at least, if not of the state, which according to this author are justly charged upon these itinerant preachers? His eighth query, page 11th (which for method sake I would here beg leave to make some remarks upon) bespeaks as much. For he herein submits it to the consideration of the [♥]public, “Whether, in a christian nation, where the instruction and edification of the people is provided for, by placing ministers in certain districts, to whom the care of the souls within those districts is regularly committed; it can be for the service of religion, that itinerant preachers run up and down from place to place, and from county to county, drawing after them confused multitudes of people? an evil which our church has wisely provided against, says our author, in the ordination of a priest, by expresly limiting the exercise of powers conferred upon him, of preaching the word of God, and administring the holy sacraments, to the congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto.” Here indeed is a heinous irregularity charged upon these itinerant preachers, even a violation of the commission given them when they were ordained priests; but with what justice, I would refer to your Lordships consideration. For if the commission given us, when ordained priests, absolutely prohibits us to preach any where but to the congregation where we shall be lawfully appointed [✤]thereunto, will it not prove too much? and has not the author, in endeavouring to reproach us, unwarily reproached your Lordships also? for are not your Lordships then equally irregular, equally violators of the laws of the church, whenever you preach (though it be never so seldom) out of your Lordships respective diocesses? And does not this commission, thus strictly taken, absolutely forbid any presbyters whatsoever preaching any where besides in their own particular congregations? and if so, are not all ministers that exchange pulpits equally irregular, at least as really violators of their ordination commission, as these itinerant preachers?
[♦] “Willmington” replaced with “Wilmington”
[♠] “religigion” replaced with “religion”
[♣] removed duplicate “and”
[♥] “publick” replaced with “public”
[✤] “therunto” replaced with “thereunto”
Our author in the following paragraph under the forementioned query tells us, “That the bishops indeed and also our two universities have power to grant licenses to preach, of a larger extent, to such clergymen as they judge proper; who, in virtue thereof may, if they chuse, travel from place to place as itinerants. But then the church has provided in that case (Can. 50), that neither the minister, church-wardens, nor any other officers of the church shall suffer any man to preach within the churches and chapels, but such as by showing their licence to preach, shall appear unto them to be sufficiently authorized thereunto.” What these licences for itinerant preaching are to which the author here refers, is not certain. Does he not seem to mean the common licences which your Lordships give the clergy, when they take upon them holy orders? Are not these the licences which the church-wardens examine? And what is the end of these licences? Was it ever heard before that they were to qualify persons to be itinerant preachers? Is not the plain end of them, to satisfy the church-wardens that the persons who offer their service have had a regular ordination, and are sufficiently authorised to preach? And does not the author know that these licences now are little regarded? Do not our letters of orders answer the same end to all intents and purpose? Were they not judged sufficient at our first setting out into the ministry? And after all, what is it that the ministers and church-wardens can do to persons that have not these licences? Why they are not to suffer them to preach within their churches and chapels? but have they any power, my Lords, to hinder them from preaching without their churches or chapels? No, blessed be God, their power is limited within: hitherto can they go, and no further. And therefore supposing these itinerant preachers, though they have no licenses, do not preach within any churches or chapels, unless with the ministers or church-wardens consent, how are they justly charged with violating a law of the church, though they should preach without doors to as great multitudes as shall be inclined to hear them?
He proceeds in the 3d paragraph under this 8th query to write thus: “The practice of licensing itinerant preachers was occasioned by the low talents of many incumbents in the more early days of the reformation, whose abilities carried them no farther than to the reading of homilies; a defect which has long been remedied by a liberal education of sufficient numbers of persons for the ministry, who regularly perform the office of preaching, as well as other duties, in the parishes committed to their care. And if the forementioned defect did still continue, as God be thanked it does not, it would be ill supplied by our modern itinerants, who make it their principal employ, wherever they go, to instil into the people a few favourite tenets of their own; and this, with such diligence and zeal as if the whole of christianity depended upon them, and all efforts towards the true christian life, without a belief of those tenets, were vain and ineffectual.”