Part 71

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.