The RIGHT REVEREND the BISHOP of LONDON, and the other the Right Reverend the BISHOPS concerned in the Publication thereof.
_My heart’s desire and prayer to GOD for |Israel| is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record, that they have a zeal for GOD, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of GOD’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of GOD._ Romans x. 1, 2, 3.
A SECOND LETTER TO THE Right Rev. the Bishop of LONDON, &c.
_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”