Vi.

attempted at least to show us our fault “in love and meekness of wisdom?” Brethren, “if ye have bitter zeal in your hearts, your wisdom descendeth not from above. The wisdom that is from above, is pure, peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy” or pity. Does this spirit appear in one single tract of all those which have been published against us? Is there one writer that has reproved us in love? Bring it to a single point. “Love hopeth all things.” If you had loved us in any degree, you would have hoped that God would some time give us the knowledge of his truth. But where shall we find even this slender instance of love? Has not every one who has wrote at all (I do not remember so much as one exception) treated us as incorrigible? Brethren, how is this? Why do ye labor to teach us an evil lesson against yourselves? O may God never suffer others to deal with you as ye have dealt with us!

VI.

1. Before I enter upon the consideration of those objections which have been made to the manner of our preaching, I believe it may be satisfactory to some readers, if I relate how I began to preach in this manner: — I was ordained Deacon in 1725, and Priest in the year following. But it was many years after this before I was convinced of the great truths above recited. During all that time I was utterly ignorant of the nature and condition of justification. Sometimes I confounded it with sanctification; (particularly when I was in Georgia;) at other times I had some confused notion about the forgiveness of sins; but then I took it for granted the time of this must be either the hour of death, or the day of judgment. I was equally ignorant of the nature of saving faith; apprehending it to mean no more than a “firm assent to all the propositions contained in the Old and New Testaments.”

2. As soon as, by the great blessing of God, I had a clearer view of these things, I began to declare them to others also. “I believed, and therefore I spake.” Wherever I was now desired to preach, salvation by faith was my only theme. My constant subjects were, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” “Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance and remission of sins.” These I explained and enforced with all my might, both in every church where I was asked to preach, and occasionally in the religious societies of London and Westminster; to some or other of which I was continually pressed to go by the stewards or other members of them.

Things were in this posture, when I was told I must preach no more in this, and this, and another church; the reason was usually added without reserve, “Because you preach such doctrines.” So much the more those who could not hear me there flocked together when I was at any of the societies; where I spoke, more or less, though with much inconvenience, to as many as the room I was in would contain.

3. But after a time, finding those rooms could not contain a tenth part of the people that were earnest to hear, I determined to do the same thing in England, which I had often done in a warmer climate; namely, when the house would not contain the congregation, to preach in the open air. This I accordingly did, first at Bristol, where the society rooms were exceeding small, and at Kingswood, where we had no room at all; afterwards, in or near London.

And I cannot say I have ever seen a more awful sight, than, when on Rose-Green, or the top of Hannam-Mount, some thousands of people were calmly joined together in solemn waiting upon God, while They stood, and under open air adored,

The God who made both air, earth, heaven, and sky.

And, whether they were listening to his word with attention still as night, or were lifting up their voice in praise as the sound of many waters, many a time have I been constrained to say in my heart, “How dreadful is this place! This” also “is no other than the house of God! This is the gate of heaven!”

Be pleased to observe:

(1.) That I was forbidden, as by a general consent, to preach in any church, (though not by any judicial sentence,) “for preaching such doctrine.” This was the open, avowed cause; there was at that time no other, either real or pretended, except that the people crowded so.

(2.) That I had no desire or design to preach in the open air, till after this prohibition.

(3.) That when I did, as it was no matter of choice, so neither of premeditation. There was no scheme at all previously formed, which was to be supported thereby; nor had I any other end in view than this, — to save as many souls as I could.

(4.) Field-preaching was therefore a sudden expedient, a thing submitted to, rather than chosen; and therefore submitted to, because I thought preaching even thus, better than not preaching at all: First, in regard to my own soul, because, “a dispensation of the gospel being committed to me,” I did not dare “not to preach the gospel:” Secondly, in regard to the souls of others, whom I everywhere saw “seeking death in the error of their life.”

4. But the author of the “Observations,” and of “The Case of the Methodists briefly stated, more particularly in the point of Field-Preaching,” thinks field-preaching worse than not preaching at all, “because it is illegal.”

Your argument, in form, runs thus: —

“That preaching, which is contrary to the laws of the land is worse than not preaching at all:

“But field-preaching is contrary to the laws of the land: “Therefore, it is worse than not preaching at all.”

The first proposition is not self-evident, nor, indeed, universally true: For the preaching of all the primitive Christians was contrary to the whole tenor of the Roman law; the worship of the devil-gods being established by the strongest laws then in being. Nor is it ever true, but on supposition that the preaching in question is an indifferent thing. But waving this, I deny the second proposition; I deny that field-preaching is contrary to the laws of our land.

To prove which, you begin thus: “It does not appear that any of the Preachers among the Methodists have qualified themselves, and the places of their assembling, according to the Act of Toleration.” I answer,

(1.) That Act grants toleration to those who dissent from the Established Church: But we do not dissent from it: Therefore, we cannot make use of that Act.

(2.) That Act exempts Dissenters from penalties consequent on their breach of preceding laws: But we are not conscious of breaking any law at all: Therefore, we need not make use of it.

In the next section you say, “They have broken through all these provisions, in open defiance of government; and have met, not only in houses, but in the fields, notwithstanding the statute (22 Car. II., c. 1) which forbids this by name.”

I answer,

(1.) We do nothing in defiance of government: We reverence Magistrates, as the Ministers of God.

(2.) Although we have met in the fields, yet we do not conceive that statute at all affects us; not only because that Act points wholly at Dissenters; whereas we are members of the Established Church; but also because (they are your own words) “it was evidently intended to suppress and prevent sedition;” whereas, no sedition, nor any the least approach thereto, can with any color be laid to our charge. In your third section you affirm that the Act of Toleration itself cannot secure us in field-preaching from the penalties of former laws. We have no desire it should; as not apprehending ourselves to be condemned by any former law whatever. Nor does what you add, “that the Act of Toleration forbids any assembly of persons dissenting from the Church of England, to meet with the doors locked,” affect us at all; because we do not dissent from it.

5. In “The Case of the Methodists briefly stated,” your first observation is, “The Act of Toleration leaves them liable to the penalties of several statutes made against unlawful assemblies.”

I suppose then these several statutes specify what those unlawful assemblies are; and whether unlawful, as being condemned by previous laws, or made unlawful by those statutes.

And it still remains to be proved, that our assemblies are unlawful, in one or other of these senses.

You next observe, that “the Dissenters of all denominations qualify themselves according to the Act of Toleration; otherwise, they are liable to the penalties of all the laws recited in this Act.”

I answer, as before, all this strikes wide. It relates wholly to “persons dissenting from the Church.” But we are not the men: We do not dissent from the Church: Whoever affirms it, we put him to the proof. You go on: “One of those laws so recited (viz., 22 Car. II., c. 1) is that which forbids field-preaching by name; and was evidently intended, not only to suppress, but also to prevent, sedition: As the title of the Act declares, and as the preamble expresses it, ‘to provide farther and more speedy remedies against it.’”

Was this then, in your own judgment, the evident intention of that Act, viz., to provide remedies against sedition? Does the very title of the Act declare this, and the preamble also express it? With what justice then, with what ingenuity or candor, with what shadow of truth or reason, can any man cite this Act against us; whom you yourself no more suspect of a design to raise sedition, (I appeal to your own conscience in the sight of God,) than of a design to blow up the city of London?

6. Hitherto, therefore, it hath not been made to appear that field-preaching is contrary to any law in being. However, “it is dangerous.” This you strongly insist on. “It may be attended with mischievous consequences. It may give advantages to the enemies of the established government. It is big with mischief.” (Observations, Sect. 1 & 2.)

With what mischief? Why, “evil-minded men, by meeting together in the fields, under pretense of religion, may raise riots and tumults; or, by meeting secretly, may carry on private cabals against the state.” (Case of the Methodists, p. 2.)

“And if the Methodists themselves are a harmless and loyal people, it is nothing to the point in hand. For disloyal and seditious persons may use such an opportunity of getting together, in order to execute any private design. Mr. Whitefield says, thirty, fifty, or eighty thousand have attended his preaching at once. Now,

(1.) He cannot know one tenth part of such a congregation:

(2.) All people may come and carry on what designs they will: Therefore,

(3.) This is a great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.

“With what safety to the public these field-preachings may be continued, let the world judge.” (Ibid. pp. 2-4.)

May I speak without offense? I cannot think you are in earnest. You do not mean what you say. Do you believe Mr. Whitefield had eighty thousand hearers at once? No more than you believe he had eighty millions. Is not all this talk of danger mere finesse, thrown in purely ad movendam invidiam? f13 You know governments generally are suspicious; especially in the time of war; and therefore apply, as you suppose, to their weak side; in hopes, if possible, to deliver over these heretics to the secular arm. However, I will answer as if you spoke from your heart: For I am in earnest, if you are not.

(1.) “The Preacher cannot know a tenth part of his congregation.” Let us come to the present state of things. The largest congregations that now attend the preaching of any Methodist, are those (God be merciful to me!) that attend mine. And cannot I know a tenth part of one of these congregations, either at Bristol, Kingswood, Newcastle, or London? As strange as it may seem, I generally know two-thirds of the congregation in every place, even on Sunday evening, and nine in ten of those who attend at most other times.

(2.) “All people may come and carry on what designs they will.” Not so. All field-preaching is now in the open day. And were only ten persons to come to such an assembly with arms, it would soon be inquired, with what design they came. This is therefore,

(3.) No “great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.” And if ever any disturbance has been raised, it was quite of another kind.

The public, then, is entirely safe, if it be in no other danger than arises from field-preaching.

7. There is one other sentence belonging to this head, in the eighth section of the “Observations.” “The religious societies,” you say, “in London and Westminster, for many years past, have received no discouragements, but, on the contrary, have been countenanced and encouraged both by the Bishops and Clergy.” How is this? Have they then “qualified themselves and places of their assembling, according to the Act of Toleration?” Have they “embraced the protection which that Act might give them, in case they complied with the conditions of it?” If not, are they not all “liable to the penalties of the several statutes made before that time against unlawful assemblies?”

How can they escape? Have they “qualified themselves for holding these separate assemblies, according to the tenor of that Act?” Have, then, “the several members thereof taken the oaths to the government?” And are the “doors of the places wherein they meet always open at the time of such meetings?” I presume you know they are not; and that neither “the persons nor places are so qualified as that Act directs.” How then come “the Bishops and Clergy to countenance and encourage” unlawful assemblies? If it be said, “They meet in a private, inoffensive way;” that is nothing to the point in hand. If those meetings are unlawful in themselves, all their inoffensiveness will not make them lawful. “O, but they behave with modesty and decency.” Very well; but the law! What is that to the law? There can be no solid defence but this: They are not Dissenters from the Church; therefore they cannot use, and they do not need, the Act of Toleration. And their meetings are not seditious; therefore the statute against seditious meetings does not affect them. The application is obvious. If our meetings are illegal, so are theirs also. But if this plea be good (as doubtless it is) in the one case, it is good in the other also.

8. You propose another objection to our manner of preaching, in the second part of the “Observations.” The substance of it I will repeat, and answer as briefly as I can: —

“They run up and down from place to place, and from county to county;” that is, they preach in several places. This is undoubtedly true. “They draw after them confused multitudes of people;” that is, many come to hear them. This is true also. “But they would do well to remember, God is not the author of confusion or of tumult, but of peace.” I trust we do: Nor is there any confusion or tumult at all in our largest congregations; unless at some rare times, when the sons of Belial mix therewith, on purpose to disturb the peaceable worshippers of God.

“But our Church has provided against this preaching up and down, in the ordination of a Priest, by expressly limiting the exercise of the powers then conferred upon him, to the congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto.”

I answer,

(1.) Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just as you proposed it, it proves that no Priest has authority, either to preach or minister the sacraments, in any other than his own congregation.

(2.) Had the powers conferred been so limited when I was ordained Priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was not appointed to any congregation at all; but was ordained as a member of that “College of Divines,” (so our statutes express it,) “founded to overturn all heresies, and defend the Catholic faith.”

(3.) For many years after I was ordained Priest, this limitation was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection, to my preaching up and down in Oxford or London, or the parts adjacent; in Gloucestershire, or Worcestershire; in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or Lincolnshire. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.

(4.) And in fact, is it not universally allowed, that every Priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, either to preach or to administer the sacraments, in any congregation, wherever the Rector or Curate desires his assistance? Does not every one then see through this thin pretense?

9. “The Bishops and Universities indeed have power to grant licenses to Itinerants. But the Church has provided in that case; they are not to preach in any church (Canon 50) till they show their license.” The Church has well provided in that case. But what has that case to do with the case of common Clergymen? Only so much as to show how grossly this Canon has been abused, at Islington in particular; where the Churchwardens were instructed to hinder, by main force, the Priest whom the Vicar himself had appointed, from preaching, and to quote this Canon; which, as you plainly show, belongs to quite another thing. In the note you add, “Mr. Wesley being asked, by what authority he preached, replied, ‘By the authority of Jesus Christ conveyed to me by the (now) Archbishop of Canterbury, when he laid his hands upon me and said, Take thou authority to preach the gospel.’ In this reply he thought fit, for a plain reason, to leave out this latter part of the commission; for that would have shown his reader the restraint and limitation under which the exercise of the power is granted.” Nay, I did not print the latter part of the words, for a plainer reason, because I did not speak them. And I did not speak them then, because they did not come into my mind. Though probably, if they had, I should not have spoken them; it being my only concern, to answer the question proposed, in as few words as I could. But before those words, which you suppose to imply such a restraint as would condemn all the Bishops and Clergy in the nation, were those, spoken without any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an indelible character: “Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his holy sacraments, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

You proceed: “In the same Journal he declares, that he looks upon all the world as his parish, and explains his meaning as follows: ‘In whatever part of it I am, I judge it meet, right, and my bounded duty, to declare, unto all that are willing to hear, the glad tidings of salvation. This is the work which I know God hath called me to;’” namely “by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” which directs me how to obey that general command, “While we have time, let us do good unto all men.”

10. You object farther, “that the Methodists do not observe the Rubric before the Communion Service; which directs, so many as desire to partake of the holy communion, to signify their names to the Curate the day before.” What Curate desires they should? Whenever any Minister will give but one week’s notice of this, I undertake, all that have any relation to me shall signify their names within the time appointed. You object also, that they break through the twenty-eighth Canon, which requires, “That if strangers come often to any church from other parishes, they should be remitted to their own churches, there to receive the communion with their neighbors.”

But what, if there be no communion there? Then this Canon does not touch the case; nor does any one break it, by coming to another church purely because there is no communion at his own.

As to your next advice, “To have a greater regard to the rules and orders of the Church,” I cannot; for I now regard them next to the word of God. And as to your last, “To renounce communion with the Church,” I dare not. Nay, but let them thrust us out. We will not leave the ship; if you cast us out of it, then our Lord will take us up.

11. To the same head may be referred the objection some time urged, by a friendly and candid man, viz., “That it was unlawful to use extemporary prayer, because there was a Canon against it.”

It was not quite clear to me, that the Canon he cited was against extemporary prayer. But supposing it were, my plain answer would be, “That Canon I dare not obey; because the law of man binds only so far as it is consistent with the word of God.”

The same person objected my not obeying the Bishops and Governors of the Church. I answer, I both do and will obey them, in whatsoever I can with a clear conscience. So that there is no just ground for that charge, —