But, my Lords, what can this author mean by writing thus? for supposing the practice of itinerant preaching was primarily occasioned by the low talents of many incumbents in the more early days of the reformation, does it therefore follow, that there can be no other just cause assigned for itinerant preaching now? What if the generality of the present incumbents depart from the good old doctrines that were preached in the more early days of the reformation, and notwithstanding their liberal education, make no other use of their learning but to explain away the articles and homilies, which they have subscribed in the grammatical and literal sense? Is it not necessary, in order to keep up the doctrines, and thereby the real dignity of the church, that either the clergy thus degenerated, should be obliged to read the homilies as formerly, and to preach consistently therewith; or that those who do hold the doctrines of the reformation, should go about from place to place, and from county to county, nay from pole to pole, if their sphere of action extended so far, to direct poor souls that are every-where ready to perish for lack of knowledge, into the right way which leadeth unto life? That this is the case between the established clergy and these itinerant preachers, will appear presently; and how then can this author charge them with making it their principal employ, wherever they go, to instil into the people a few favourite tenets of their own? Has the author followed them wherever they have preached, that he asserts this so confidently concerning them? Is it not to be wished that he had at least taken care to have been better informed? for then he would have saved himself from the guilt of a notorious slander. Is it not evident to all who hear them, that the favourite tenets which the itinerant preachers make it their principal employ to instil into people’s minds wherever they go, are the great doctrines of the reformation, homilies and articles of the church? such as “Man’s bringing into the world with him a corruption which renders him liable to God’s wrath and eternal damnation: That the condition of man after the fall of Adam, is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God: That we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings: That they are to be accursed, who presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature.” These, my Lords, are some of the favourite tenets of these itinerant preachers. Their others are like unto them. Can these, my Lords, be properly called their own? Or ought it not to be the principal employ of every true minister, wherever he goes, to instil such tenets, and that too with the utmost diligence and zeal, into the people’s minds? Does not a great part of christianity depend on them? And are not all pretensions to a true christian life, without a belief of these tenets, vain and ineffectual? May not these itinerant preachers therefore complain unto your Lordships of this anonymous author, as Mephibosheth complained to David of treacherous Ziba? Doubtless he hath slandered them. And wherefore does he speak so contemptuously of itinerant preachers? Is it not an amiable and honourable character? And may I not take the freedom of acquainting your Lordships, that if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their duty, (especially my Lord of London, whose diocess is of such a vast extent) they would all of them long since have commenced itinerant preachers too?
But to return to an examination of the other part of the author’s preface. After he has taken it for granted, that many irregularities are justly charged upon these itinerant preachers, as “Violations of the laws of church and state,” he adds, “It may be proper to enquire, whether the doctrines they teach, and those lengths they run beyond what is practised among our religious societies, or in any other christian church, be a service or disservice to religion.” The religious societies or any other christian church! What, does our author make the religious societies a church? This is going further than the Methodists, whom he is pleased to stile only a sect. But if the religious societies, my Lords, be a church, may it not be proper to enquire how their doctrines or practices came to be set up as a rule and standard for others to go by, so that persons doing service or disservice to religion must be judged of according as they deviate from or adhere to the religious societies either in doctrine or practice? Or supposing the religious societies were to be a standard for others to go by, was it not incumbent on the author to give the public a short summary and account of their doctrines and practices? For otherwise how can the world possibly judge whether the Methodists do deviate from them; or if so, whether they do thereby service or disservice to religion? Indeed, this author has told us in his first part, how the religious societies behave on Sundays; but he has no where acquainted us with the principles they hold, or how they behave on other days. And till he does, I will venture to affirm, that unless these itinerants teach other doctrines than the present religious societies generally hold, and run greater lengths in christianity than the generality of them, it is to be feared, now run, they will be in great danger of never arriving at “the mark for the prize of their high-calling in Christ Jesus their Lord.”
I have been the more particular, my Lord, in the examination of the preface, because the author, by annexing these words, “to which purpose the following queries are submitted to consideration,” seems to lay it down as the ground-work and foundation of all the subsequent queries. And if the foundation be so weak and sandy, how slight and superficial must be the superstructure?
I suppose your Lordships will readily grant, that it is the bounden duty of every regular and fair writer (especially when he is charging others with irregularities as violations of the laws of church and state) to take care that he does not violate the laws of christian charity. Or if he puts queries to the public concerning any persons, ought he not to take heed that those queries are founded upon truth, and that the charges therein exhibited are really matter of fact? But our author has notoriously neglected this fundamental rule, and thereby not only cast a lasting blot and odium upon his own character, if his name was known, but also hath done real hurt to the cause he would defend. The query already examined concerning itinerant preaching, wherein he has charged the Methodists with instilling into people a few favourite tenets of their own, sufficiently demonstrates this. But this is not all; several of the other queries now coming under consideration are by no means founded on truth, and contain charges against these itinerants, whereby they are as much wronged and unjustly vilified as ever Stephen was, when the Jews suborned men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God, this holy place and the law.”
To prove this, we need only examine the two queries which immediately follow the preface.
Query 1st. “Whether notions in religion may not be heightened to such extremes, as to lead some into a disregard of religion itself through despair of attaining such exalted heights? and whether others, who have imbibed those notions, may not be led by them into a disregard and disesteem of the common duties and offices of life, to such a degree at least as is inconsistent with that attention to them, and that diligence in them, which providence has made necessary to the well-being of private families and public societies, and which christianity does not only require in all stations and in all conditions, but declares at the same time (Colossians iii. 22. Ephesians [♦]v. 6.) that the performance even of the lowest offices in life, as unto God (whose providence has placed people in their several stations) is truly serving Christ, and will not fail of its reward in the next world.”
[♦] “5” replaced with “v” for consistency
Query 2. “Whether the enemy of mankind may not find his account in their carrying christianity, which was designed for a rule to all stations and all conditions, to such heights as make it fairly practicable by a very few in comparison, or rather by none?”
His 5th and 6th queries, page the 10th, are like unto them. They run thus, “Whether those exalted strains in religion, and an imagination of being already in a state of perfection, are not apt to lead men to spiritual pride, and to a contempt of their fellow-christians; while they consider them as only going on in what they account the low and imperfect way,” (i. e. as growing in grace and goodness only by degrees)? And again, “whether the same exalted strains and notions do not tend to weaken the natural and civil relations among men, by leading the inferiors, into whose heads those notions are infused, to a disesteem of their superiors; while they consider them as in a much lower dispensation than themselves; though those superiors are otherwise sober and good men, and regular attendants on the ordinances of religion?”
Here again it is supposed, that these itinerant preachers either imagine themselves to be in a state of perfection, or at least teach others to imagine that they are; and that the consequence of this is a weakning the natural and civil relations among men, by leading them to a disesteem of their fellow-christians, and superiors, who are supposed to be in a lower dispensation than themselves.