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.